Greenpeace Damages Nazca Site

[Something Amyss]

This was a really shitty thing for Greenpeace to do.

But here, I really don't see what the big deal is. What damage has actually been done, I couldn't spot any kind of alteration to the site, except the admittedly tasteless yellow letters. The outrage over some footprints (that can't even really be seen anywhere if you don't search with a magnifying glass) in a desert seems to be just as petty as the supposedly harmful activity itself.

You know, Peru has taken an awful lot of care to avoid any sort of alteration to the site, to the point you need special permission to go on foot and need special footwear to avoid marking the ground. As people have pointed out, that ground could potentially remain marked by Greenpeace's feet for thousands of years. The lack of respect alone should be worth note, even if not the damage itself.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Yeah, I saw this, and as a lover of antiquity it made me pretty angry.

But what got me even more angry was their response. "We are surprised to have caused moral offence." Fucking Greenpeace, the masters of moral outrage, acting as if they don't know what might cause it? Or as if the real problem here isn't the fucking criminal damage, it's the moral offence? Asshats.

 

[Lieju]

On a related note, I'd be curious to know what kind those special footwear that people with permission to study the lines are required to wear are.
All my searches just get me this story, and I'd love to know.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Stupidity knows no limits. This can be applied to both PETA and Greenpeace.

 

[Vigormortis]

Here's some truth for you. Activists are idiots. All they do is symbolic gestures that don't change anything. They're stupid. Their intentions are good, but they're stupid. If you thought that individual people are dumb, put them in a group and give them a common goal. That's a whole lot of stupid.

Ain't that the truth...

And now you know why I always distance myself from ideologies.

I'm a staunch advocate of many ideals[footnote]For example, many of the core ideals of Feminism, Humanism, etc.[/footnote], but you'll rarely if ever see me associate myself with the ideologies associated with those ideals.

Ideologies are too easily tainted by lunacy, corruption, and idiocy. Ideals less so.

The actions of these Greenpeace buffoons are a fine example of this.

On a related note, I'd be curious to know what kind those special footwear that people with permission to study the lines are required to wear are.
All my searches just get me this story, and I'd love to know.

I'm curious as well, but have not been able to find the appropriate information either.

If you find the answer would you be gracious enough to share with the class?

 

[EvilRoy]

On a related note, I'd be curious to know what kind those special footwear that people with permission to study the lines are required to wear are.
All my searches just get me this story, and I'd love to know.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe they are similar to footwear used near other delicate archeological sites - no tread and very soft rubber, so you leave minimal impression on the ground.

I believe they are called "site shoes" although it's not the kind of thing an average person buys, so you probably aren't going to find them in normal stores. I can't find a damn thing online to confirm this, and my books are at home I'm afraid.

Edit:

You know, it was in a damn lab book too, so I can't even google a textbook name. I'm finding references that mention foam flipflops, which kind of rings a bell. I want to say almost like a treadless croc that keeps your filthy, caustic footsweat away from the ground.

 

[Lieju]

On a related note, I'd be curious to know what kind those special footwear that people with permission to study the lines are required to wear are.
All my searches just get me this story, and I'd love to know.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe they are similar to footwear used near other delicate archeological sites - no tread and very soft rubber, so you leave minimal impression on the ground.

I believe they are called "site shoes" although it's not the kind of thing an average person buys, so you probably aren't going to find them in normal stores. I can't find a damn thing online to confirm this, and my books are at home I'm afraid.

Edit:

You know, it was in a damn lab book too, so I can't even google a textbook name. I'm finding references that mention foam flipflops, which kind of rings a bell. I want to say almost like a treadless croc that keeps your filthy, caustic footsweat away from the ground.

I have participated on some archeological/geological digs here in Finland, but on those it was more of a matter of making sure there were places you wouldn't walk on at all, but I recall seeing some flipfloppy ones in some pictures, not sure if those were that exactly though. That would make sense though.

Also, the Guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/10/peru-press-charges-greenpeace-nazca-lines-stunt
mentions there was apparently an archeologist helping Greenpeace in this? Although I'm not sure how they're sure. So maybe they made at least some effort to avoid damage, by involving an archeologist? Although it doesn't absolve them of responsibility, and their comment about 'offense' is bullcrap.

You don't get to go and cause damage to something and then go 'Oh, I'm so sorry you were offended.'

 

[OneCatch]

Although it doesn't absolve them of responsibility, and their comment about 'offense' is bullcrap.

You don't get to go and cause damage to something and then go 'Oh, I'm so sorry you were offended.'

Well said. If they'd immediately offered up a few million dollars as a contingency fund and started organizing a proposed cleanup and repair plan with the Peruvian government, that would go some way to showing genuine desire to fix things.
Too harsh? I don't think so - they've got the turnover for it. And if they have to cut back on other environmental causes in the coming year, well, perhaps having to break the bad news to all the local teams they can no longer afford to fund will teach them a damn good lesson about paying for your mistakes.

As it is, they've just shown utter contempt with these half arsed, conditional apologies and pledges. No doubt they're just waiting for the social media storm to blow over and hoping everyone forgets about it.

 

[sageoftruth]

Damn! I need to check my monthly expenses. Am I making financial contributions to them? If so, I need to opt out fast.

 

[EvilRoy]

On a related note, I'd be curious to know what kind those special footwear that people with permission to study the lines are required to wear are.
All my searches just get me this story, and I'd love to know.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe they are similar to footwear used near other delicate archeological sites - no tread and very soft rubber, so you leave minimal impression on the ground.

I believe they are called "site shoes" although it's not the kind of thing an average person buys, so you probably aren't going to find them in normal stores. I can't find a damn thing online to confirm this, and my books are at home I'm afraid.

Edit:

You know, it was in a damn lab book too, so I can't even google a textbook name. I'm finding references that mention foam flipflops, which kind of rings a bell. I want to say almost like a treadless croc that keeps your filthy, caustic footsweat away from the ground.

I have participated on some archeological/geological digs here in Finland, but on those it was more of a matter of making sure there were places you wouldn't walk on at all, but I recall seeing some flipfloppy ones in some pictures, not sure if those were that exactly though. That would make sense though.

Also, the Guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/10/peru-press-charges-greenpeace-nazca-lines-stunt
mentions there was apparently an archeologist helping Greenpeace in this? Although I'm not sure how they're sure. So maybe they made at least some effort to avoid damage, by involving an archeologist? Although it doesn't absolve them of responsibility, and their comment about 'offense' is bullcrap.

You don't get to go and cause damage to something and then go 'Oh, I'm so sorry you were offended.'

I get where you're coming from on that. I didn't think much of the rather political "sorry you didn't like this" non-apology either. I do kind of question them having gotten an archaeologist to help with this though - surely a reasonable and educated person would have known what kind of issue this was going to cause from the get go.

Perhaps I assume to much in saying that all archeologists know the proper approach to all worksites, but I do think this falls under "common sense for a person in X profession". Just because you haven't worked in an area before does not preclude you from the reasonable expectation that a given area will feature particular requirements and sensitivities - nobody with an education in the field should need to be told this. I certainly don't get that benefit when I work in unusual locations.

 

[Lieju]

I do kind of question them having gotten an archaeologist to help with this though - surely a reasonable and educated person would have known what kind of issue this was going to cause from the get go.

Perhaps I assume to much in saying that all archeologists know the proper approach to all worksites, but I do think this falls under "common sense for a person in X profession". Just because you haven't worked in an area before does not preclude you from the reasonable expectation that a given area will feature particular requirements and sensitivities - nobody with an education in the field should need to be told this. I certainly don't get that benefit when I work in unusual locations.

Maybe they just didn't care? Although I can't really find (from a quick Google search) why they thought there had to be an archeologist? I have no idea how you get to the site, but it kinda sounded like they assumed someone had to have led them there.
Which wouldn't necessary mean an archeologist, could have been just someone who had visited the site or worked there.

 

[Silvanus]

This was not a good thing for them to do.


That said, I also despair that this likely provoked more internet-outrage than companies do when they cause far more damage.

 

[Kathinka]

On a related note, I'd be curious to know what kind those special footwear that people with permission to study the lines are required to wear are.
All my searches just get me this story, and I'd love to know.

I can oblige! Came across that by coincidence. Apparently these shoe thingies distribute the weight over a wider area and are also covered in some special surface to minimize damage to the ground. And even with these special shoes, scientists keep movement there to a minimum to stave of wear and tear.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

lSHaDoW-FoXl" post="18.866993.21685964"]OT: Fuck Greenpeace. I hope everyone involved in this disrespectful ass-nugget of a stunt gets put away for the rest of their lives.

Vandalism = Life sentence. Sorry, but regardless of the value we put on a few lines in the sand they're still just lines in the sand. And the lines them selves are still untouched. If they're getting a life sentence for that, I'd hate to imagine what punishments you deserve for all the suffering you've caused in turn.

Regardless of the value we put on the Mona Lisa, it's still just paint on a canvas.
Regardless of the value we put on the declaration of independence and the constitution, they're just ink on parchment.
Regardless of the value we put on Mount Rushmore, it's still just a pile of rocks.
Regardless of the value we put on the statue of liberty, it's still just a hunk of metal.
Regardless of the value we put on Egyptian ruins, they're still just broken buildings with shitty art on them.

These scumbags damaged a cultural and historical landmark. Period. They deserve the worst punishment Peru can dish out.

False equivalence. Vandalizing the Mona Lisa would involve legitimately altering the painting its self as opposed to keeping the actual picture intact and basically putting a message beside it. I'm liking on how we put more value on soil than actual animal life and the environment, so I guess this just goes to show where the priorities lie. As I said, I'd hate to imagine what you'd deserve.

 

[Lieju]

snip

Interesting, thanks.

I'm liking on how we put more value on soil than actual animal life and the environment, so I guess this just goes to show where the priorities lie. As I said, I'd hate to imagine what you'd deserve.

They didn't have to go there though, not even to get their message across. Even if they want to do publicity stunts, there are other, less fragile places.

Wanting to preserve these historical sites has nothing to do with anti-animal rights or anti-enviromentalism.
If Greenpeace had to go to the site to save a population of endangered animals, or in general had to go THERE in particular to get their message across, you might have a point.

As it is, all it does is sends the message they are ill-informed about what kind of effect their actions have on the environment. And that they don't care about historical artefacts and cultural history.

Enviromentalism doesn't need this kind of stuff, or attitudes.

 

[Baron Tanks]

Greenpeace is to environmentalist what PETA is to animal rights groups.

Quoted for truth. I've always disliked Greenpeace for exactly this reason. In my eyes, they have always been the embodiment of ends justifies the means gone wrong. I?ll give them credit for one thing, the people on the street that try to get you to sign up for them are a great way to blow off steam when you give them a piece of mind about this terrible organisation.

 

[SadisticFire]

No, it really isn't.

The plateau where the lines sit is basically the canvas. A more accurate analogy is if you were to break into the Louvre and paint your own bullshit political message on the painting, right next to her face, all while leaving some nasty gashes on the side of the painting.

Also, I love how you just focused on a faction of my examples while ignoring the rest.

Well it'd be more accurate to say if there was a white spot and they painted on it. Impossible to ignore, permenant, but not actually harming the art. So it's 2% better than drawing on it.
That being said, it's still 98% bullshit thing to do. It makes me think about my opinion on long term justice, since it is a permenant effect.. but I feel like six years is plenty. That's over a third of my life. Punishment is about reinstulization. And what's worst than teaching some one they did something infinitely wrong, then making them live with that burden and guilt forever?

EDIT: also making them pay for/work for the restoration of the sight would be a nice touch, but it might lift them of the guilt they would suffer for.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

The plateau where the lines sit is basically the canvas. A more accurate analogy is if you were to break into the Louvre and paint your own bullshit political message on the painting, right next to her face, all while leaving some nasty gashes on the side of the painting.

Also, I love how you just focused on a faction of my examples while ignoring the rest.

Classy, bro. Real fucking classy.

No, it's really not. If anything, it's a lot more like painting on the frame or beside it. There is still noticeably damage done, but not to the actual piece its self. And I didn't list your other examples because it would be incredibly redundant. Don't talk to me about class when you wished people to face the worst possible scenario over a crime which never actually harmed anyone or anything. The way you make it out to be you'd think that they literally wrote the message on the drawing its self to the point to where it's not even noticeable anymore. And honestly, maybe they should have. Because perhaps then that would get the point across that some of the harm we bring legitimately can't be undone.