Greenpeace damages ancient Peruvian Nazca lines in ad stunt

[Borgholio]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ines-stunt

Greenpeace has apologised to the people of Peru after the government accused the environmentalists of damaging ancient earth markings in the country’s coastal desert by leaving footprints in the ground during a publicity stunt meant to send a message to the UN climate talks delegates in Lima.

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “Without reservation Greenpeace apologises to the people of Peru for the offence caused by our recent activity laying a message of hope at the site of the historic Nazca lines. We are deeply sorry for this.

“Rather than relay an urgent message of hope and possibility to the leaders gathering at the Lima UN climate talks, we came across as careless and crass.”

Earlier Peru’s vice-minister for culture Luis Jaime Castillo had accused Greenpeace of “extreme environmentalism” and ignoring what the Peruvian people “consider to be sacred” after the protest at the world renowned Nazca lines, a Unesco world heritage site.

He said the government was seeking to prevent those responsible from leaving the country while it asked prosecutors to file charges of attacking archaeological monuments, a crime punishable by up to six years in prison.

The activists had entered a strictly prohibited area beside the figure of a hummingbird among the lines, the culture ministry said, and they had laid down big yellow cloth letters reading “Time for Change! The Future is Renewable” as the UN climate talks began in Peru’s capital.

“This has been done without any respect for our laws. It was done in the middle of the night. They went ahead and stepped on our hummingbird, and looking at the pictures we can see there’s very severe damage,” Castillo said. “Nobody can go on these lines without permission – not even the president of Peru!”

Peruvian authorities are also seeking the identity of the archaeologist who led the activists to the site and the plane from which the photos of the stunt were taken, he said. “It was thoughtless, insensitive, illegal, irresponsible and absolutely pre-meditated. Greenpeace has said it was planning this action for months.”
Advertisement

Tina Loeffelbein, a Greenpeace spokeswoman at the summit, said she was not aware of any legal proceedings being brought against the group. She said Greenpeace was cooperating with the Peruvian authorities and seeking to clarify what took place.

In a statement Greenpeace said it was concerned that it could have caused “moral offence to the Peruvian people”.

The statement read: “Our history of more than 40 years of peaceful activism clearly shows that we have always been most respectful with people around the world and their diverse cultural legacies.”

Castillo responded: “Disrespecting humanity’s cultural heritage – I don’t think that’s the message this summit or Greenpeace is trying to spread to the world! Most of us in the cultural sector agree with the message. But the means don’t justify the ends.”

“We took every care we could to try and avoid any damage. We have 40 years of experience of doing peaceful protests,” Kyle Ash, Greenpeace spokesman, told the Guardian. “The surprise to us was that this resulted in some kind of moral offense. We definitely regret that and we want to figure out a way to resolve it. We are very remorseful for any offense that we’ve caused and we’re very remorseful for that.”

He said Greenpeace met on Wednesday with Peru’s minister of culture, Diana Alvarez. He said the organization hoped to maintain a dialogue with the Peruvian government. He added Greenpeace would take “total responsibility” if any permanent damage had been caused to the archaeological site.

“It’s not a matter of money. The destruction is irreparable,” Ana Maria Cogorno, President of the Maria Reiche Association named after the German archaeologist whose groundbreaking research on the Nazca Lines from 1940 onwards saw them gain recognition and protection, told the Guardian.

The hummingbird etching on which the Greenpeace stunt was laid was the “only one of the lines which was completely untouched and perfectly conserved”, she said. “It’s one of the symbols of Peru,” she added.

Last week Greenpeace projected a message promoting solar energy on to Huayna Picchu, the mountain that overlooks the Inca citadel of Machu Picchu, another protected archaeological site in Peru.

How fucking stupid can they get? Protect the environment by destroying it?

[Patroklos]

Just collateral damage. The cause is all that matters to people like this and they come in all flavors.

[Simon_Jester]

I suspect most of the actual damage came about through carelessness and ignorance. A lot of people have a hard time grasping the idea that you can damage a thing which has survived thousands of years, just by walking on it.

EDIT: I'm trying to find an image of the actual damage. Which seems to have come about because footprints are very well preserved at Nazca, so walking off the lines creates visible scars in the terrain.

EDIT: Found one. The damaged area is outlined in red; this is actually pretty bad. This is not the Peruvian government getting mad over nothing.

[Borgholio]

No wonder they're pissed...that's not just a few footprints there...

[Zixinus]

What possessed these people to even pick that spot as a location in the first place? It can't have been a spur of a moment thing, the logistics of getting there is complicated and probably expensive.

[Grumman]

Just to point this out: they didn't damage the Nazca lines. There is no overlap between the damaged area and the Hummingbird. Depending on how much of those paths already existed, they damaged a rectangle of dirt next to the Nazca lines and maybe that path leading up to the rectangle.

[Thanas]

It might also have something to do that Greenpeace is currently doing a good job emberrassing the peruvian government over its dolphin slaughter.

[Simon_Jester]

Just to point this out: they didn't damage the Nazca lines. There is no overlap between the damaged area and the Hummingbird. Depending on how much of those paths already existed, they damaged a rectangle of dirt next to the Nazca lines and maybe that path leading up to the rectangle.

Imagine somebody walked up to Mount Rushmore and dynamited a big smiley face in the rock next to George Washington's head. Even if no physical damage happened to the four giant presidential heads, and all the blasting took place on the unmodified surface of the mountain itself... that is still defacing Mount Rushmore. Because now you can't look at Mount Rushmore, without also seeing the huge smiley face.

Likewise, if I go into an ancient cave with cave paintings, find a wall the cavemen didn't paint, and scrawl obscenities on it in bright neon orange... I have defaced the cave paintings. Even if they're not physically covered with paint.

When a work of art is meant to be framed by a certain kind of natural surroundings, and I damage or deface those surroundings, I have damaged or defaced the cultural artwork. The Nazca lines aren't just the physical wiggly trenches cut into the dark gravel surface. They're the shape and pattern of the lines against a naturally occurring backdrop that happens to form an excellent 'canvas.' Scar up the canvas and you deface the art.

It might also have something to do that Greenpeace is currently doing a good job emberrassing the peruvian government over its dolphin slaughter.

Nevertheless...

The fact of the matter is, a bunch of people with an ephemeral political message ("Hey, this conference, do what you're already doing, only harder!") showed up to get attention by spreading bright yellow letters across a UNESCO World Heritage Site. They proceeded to damage this World Heritage Site, treating it with extreme carelessness, disrespect, and ignorance. It is possible that there is no way to restore the site to its appearance prior to their intrusion.

And all this so they could make a 'protest' that amounts to a publicity stunt- not even a stunt protesting anything in particular as far as I can tell.

Given that you have a strong background in ancient studies and an impeccable history on this board of encouraging respect for ancient history... I'm sure that this kind of careless damage to a site of great historical, cultural, and archaeological significance bothers you.

[Covenant]

Some of the outrage is certainly political but it is also a pointlessly idiotic stunt: who is going to look at this, from a conservation perspective, and think "yeah that's a pretty good picture there" in any serious manner? Being near the hummingbird does very little for their message. They did a non-destructive stunt where they projected a message onto things with light, not walk all over to place and stretch letters. Pretty boneheaded stunt to do it with people and cloth letters.

If all they wanted was a nice image of the Nazca Lines with a message next to it then I can do that for you in about 30 seconds using photoshop and it won't damage any delicate human historical legacy sites.

[Borgholio]

Another stunt they pulled was to use a giant projector to project a message above Machu Picchu. That wouldn't be so bad because it's not harming anything. But they had to physically damage an area near the Nazca lines and that is the problem.

[Thanas]

The fact of the matter is, a bunch of people with an ephemeral political message ("Hey, this conference, do what you're already doing, only harder!") showed up to get attention by spreading bright yellow letters across a UNESCO World Heritage Site. They proceeded to damage this World Heritage Site, treating it with extreme carelessness, disrespect, and ignorance. It is possible that there is no way to restore the site to its appearance prior to their intrusion.

And all this so they could make a 'protest' that amounts to a publicity stunt- not even a stunt protesting anything in particular as far as I can tell.

Given that you have a strong background in ancient studies and an impeccable history on this board of encouraging respect for ancient history... I'm sure that this kind of careless damage to a site of great historical, cultural, and archaeological significance bothers you.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I don't approve of this at all. But this is Peru we are talking about, the people who are famous in art history circles for demolishing this to build this. And the same people who had no problem with tourists in Macchu Picchu trampling all over the old historic sites. Heck, many valuable pieces of inca art has already been lost because Peru did nothing to protect the art. Rubbish littering was a real problem, ancient pathways have eroded, stones damaged by people kicking or sitting on them and the toxic fumes from the vehicles in the nearby town, unrestricted urban development etc.....they only made a token effort when the UNESCO threatened to put them on the black list but that is pretty much all it was with visitor levels rising to new heights because money is to be made. Oh and the so valuable inca trail? Until recently people were walking all over it because Peru made money from it.

BTW, these are not the only lines. There are others....and Peru did pretty much nothing when squatters were living on them. Only when international outrage happened did they do something. That just happened less than 2 years ago.

So while I can condemn Greenpeace, I find the Peruvians suddenly caring so much a bit....suspicious. And when you combine that with the fact that Greenpeace and other organizations are currently blasting Peru for its abysmal ecological record....yeah.

[Joun_Lord]

How fucking stupid can they get? Protect the environment by destroying it?

Those lines aren't the environment, they are pillaging and rape on the environment done by dirty, dirty humans.

Thats all I can assume is their thought in the matter.

More likely they either thought they couldn't a damage site that has existed for centuries or had the thought any damage they would do was inconsequential compared to the need to get out their message.

The thing I wonder is what was up with the archeologist that led these numbnuts to the site. Most archeologists who have spent years working at various sites in their field would I think be very passionate about their work and protecting it, certainly wouldn't be down with leading trespassers on to fuck about. Maybe someone who is less dedicated to their work then environmental bullshit or some greased palms. Just odd.

[General Brock]

Greenpeace is pretty media savvy and tries to be sensitive to indigenous cultures; this is an odd thing for them to do. So far nothing on the Greenpeace website.

[Irbis]

Just to point this out: they didn't damage the Nazca lines. There is no overlap between the damaged area and the Hummingbird. Depending on how much of those paths already existed, they damaged a rectangle of dirt next to the Nazca lines and maybe that path leading up to the rectangle.

Compare this photo with this one. No overlap? They fucking shat all over background making very sharp picture no longer stand out (especially left wing), left line brighter than historical ones, all for a brainless stunt that could have been replaced by fucking 10 minute photoshop session

It might also have something to do that Greenpeace is currently doing a good job emberrassing the peruvian government over its dolphin slaughter.

So, let me get this straight. You're willing to go on 3 page rant on evil scientists daring to use common Roman industrial ware with no cultural value whatsoever to only, oh, expand human knowledge and better human race as a whole, but...

...you're willing to excuse Greenpeace peeing all over artefact singular on global scale, one of few remaining monuments of very unique culture that produced cultural and technological marvels far exceeding that of the Romans in places. All because Peruvians are lynching blacks. Is that correct?

And for what, even? This won't help protect the environment. All these fucktards are doing is to make it easy for climate change deniers and industrial interests puppets fight the right course by equating it with negative publicity. Just as their idiotic "fight" with GMO helps big corporations sneak in unsafe badly tested for profit stuff by helping to equate it with safe GMO like fortified golden rice. Also oh, helping up to million children die each year, but who cares, vitamin A is a pollutant!

The thing I wonder is what was up with the archeologist that led these numbnuts to the site. Most archeologists who have spent years working at various sites in their field would I think be very passionate about their work and protecting it, certainly wouldn't be down with leading trespassers on to fuck about. Maybe someone who is less dedicated to their work then environmental bullshit or some greased palms. Just odd.

What's even worse is that local archaeologists have proper equipment ready to walk there without negatively affecting the ground. That imbecile dragged them there in hard boots instead, making damage larger.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't even really understand what they hoped to accomplish with this stunt. If they hadn't damaged the Nazca lines, would any of us have even heard about their little banner? Who would have seen it? It's not like commercial flights go over the lines (that I can tell, anyway, may be wrong). A handful of private tours would have flown over, which is pretty limited exposure. If they were looking for a meme, just Photoshop it.

But what's the upside of this, assuming even that they could have done it without damaging the lines?

[Purple]

But what's the upside of this, assuming even that they could have done it without damaging the lines?

Maybe this is just me being cynical but from what I gathered of a lot of these groups* they are basically composed of the equivalent of internet SJWs. The upside is them getting a power trip from being noticed for their grand stunt. They'll get their pictures in the newspaper. On the television even! The world will hear of what little old them did. And thus they will have their 5 minutes of fame and an excuse to pat each other on the back.

* By "these groups" I am referring to the various subgroups within environmental protection organizations. They aren't all bad. Or at least I'd like to think this in spite of everything. Call me an optimist I guess. But there are parts of them that are no better than PETA or those idiots who went out to ram Japanese fishing ships.

[Thanas]

So, let me get this straight. You're willing to go on 3 page rant on evil scientists daring to use common Roman industrial ware with no cultural value whatsoever to only, oh, expand human knowledge and better human race as a whole, but...

...you're willing to excuse Greenpeace peeing all over artefact singular on global scale, one of few remaining monuments of very unique culture that produced cultural and technological marvels far exceeding that of the Romans in places. All because Peruvians are lynching blacks. Is that correct?

No and only an idiot of the highest order would think so. Seriously, you got to be a special kind of fucktard to miss the first two sentences of the very post you quoted.

[Simon_Jester]

I heard from one article that Greenpeace had a drone with a camera up in the air, so they may have been hoping to make imagery they could use later. It would have been kind of cool and interesting, really... if they hadn't gone and defaced an ancient landmark site to do it.

But what's the upside of this, assuming even that they could have done it without damaging the lines?

Maybe this is just me being cynical but from what I gathered of a lot of these groups* they are basically composed of the equivalent of internet SJWs.

Oh, you HAD to go use that tired old craponym...

The upside is them getting a power trip from being noticed for their grand stunt. They'll get their pictures in the newspaper. On the television even! The world will hear of what little old them did. And thus they will have their 5 minutes of fame and an excuse to pat each other on the back.

* By "these groups" I am referring to the various subgroups within environmental protection organizations. They aren't all bad. Or at least I'd like to think this in spite of everything. Call me an optimist I guess. But there are parts of them that are no better than PETA or those idiots who went out to ram Japanese fishing ships.

While I find your attitude contemptible and ignorant, you have in fact hit on a relevant point. Greenpeace in particular has a tradition of engaging in very dramatic publicity stunts, and often lacks the information or breadth of understanding it would take to act appropriately, sensitively, and intelligently in a complicated situation.

At the same time, though, there are radical environmentalist movements that really are heavily motivated by a desire to fight for the environment (i.e. to save the whales by committing what amounts to piracy against whale-killers). To those, I at least grant the courage of their convictions.

[Purple]

Oh, you HAD to go use that tired old craponym...

Sorry about that. But if the shoe fits...

While I find your attitude contemptible and ignorant, you have in fact hit on a relevant point. Greenpeace in particular has a tradition of engaging in very dramatic publicity stunts, and often lacks the information or breadth of understanding it would take to act appropriately, sensitively, and intelligently in a complicated situation.

Which is basically why they get no sympathy from me when they do something like this. It basically ticks all the relevant points required for me to hate something. I hate publicity stunts of any kind. And especially ones that aren't though trough. What other conclusion can be made from such things other than that thy just did not care? So when they go out and do actual damage they are (at least for that moment) in my eyes no better than PETA.

At the same time, though, there are radical environmentalist movements that really are heavily motivated by a desire to fight for the environment (i.e. to save the whales by committing what amounts to piracy against whale-killers). To those, I at least grant the courage of their convictions.

And I feel that these are spilling over into the more mainstream organizations. Basically, the guys that are as crazy as those fools but not as brave to actually go out and commit piracy end up spilling over into the more radical wings of GP to try and get their trip from there. So we end up with crap like this.

And don't get me wrong. I am not saying they are all bad.

[mr friendly guy]

I just want to point out that as much as I detest Greenpeace, they don't behave like SJWs. For one thing, SJW focus on how much more privilege their opponents are, whereas Greenpeace being from rich countries are the ones with privilege. So much privilege they never go hungry even as they advise poor countries to refuse to take GM plants. After all its only a few million of those people dying from Vitamin A deficiency.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Sorry about that. But if the shoe fits...

I am sorry, but it really does not. SJW is an acronym used to describe people who complain on the internet about how poorly they get treated for being non-white/straight/male/christian/first world.

Oh the horrors. THE HORROR. What is more, these ones are actually right. Said people are treated like shit, and it is not cool that they are treated like shit.

Greenpeace takes actions that lead to people in the developing world starving to death, and support environmental policies in ignorance that will make matters worse in the long term (rejecting GMOs and Nuclear Power).

Your comparison is shit.

[Purple]

I am sorry, but it really does not. SJW is an acronym used to describe people who complain on the internet about how poorly they get treated for being non-white/straight/male/christian/first world.

I was under the impression that the term was used to describe white/straight/male/christian/first world people who get off on fainting outrage and "fighting in the name of various oppressed groups"* that they do not belong to or understand, mindlessly going so far as to do harm to the group in question (The old "how are you not offended by this!" argument.) just so that they can get their high of self righteous smug. And thus bringing a bad name to people who actually care about social justice.


* note the "". They don't actually fight for those people or even care about them. They just pick a group to "defend" as an excuse to get off on berating everyone else how horrible the are and get a kick out of it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I was under the impression that the term was used to describe white/straight/male/christian/first world people who get off on fainting outrage and "fighting in the name of various oppressed groups"* that they do not belong to or understand, mindlessly going so far as to do harm to the group in question (The old "how are you not offended by this!" argument.) just so that they can get their high of self righteous smug. And thus bringing a bad name to people who actually care about social justice.


* note the "". They don't actually fight for those people or even care about them. They just pick a group to "defend" as an excuse to get off on berating everyone else how horrible the are and get a kick out of it.

It might have originally meant that. Now it has come to be used as a derogative term for every feminist, gay activist, or civil rights worker on the internet.

[Purple]

It might have originally meant that. Now it has come to be used as a derogative term for every feminist, gay activist, or civil rights worker on the internet.

Well if that's true this is the first time I've heard of it.

[Terralthra]

It might have originally meant that. Now it has come to be used as a derogative term for every feminist, gay activist, or civil rights worker on the internet.

Well if that's true this is the first time I've heard of it.

You posted in the GamerGate thread, wherein several people used it to refer to Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, and Brianna Wu, along with their other preferred slur, "professional victim".