Greenpeace has apologized to the people of Peru for stomping on the Nazca lines in order to stick a dopy slogan next to them – but it’s a bad, point-missing apology.
Greenpeace has apologized for the action. “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,” the organization said in a statement. “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.”
No, you dumb fucks. You damaged the site. It’s not about how you “came across” and it’s not about “offence” – it’s about the damage you did by entering a site that is closed in order to preserve it. Jesus h christ wouldn’t you think an environmental group of all groups would be able to grasp the difference between “causing offense” and doing irreparable damage to a part of the earth?
What stinking cowards they must be along with being whatever kind of ruthless shithead you have to be to barge into a closed historical archaeological artistic site in the first place. How cowardly and evasive to pretend all they did was cause some offence and appear careless and crass.
No doubt they did that for legal reasons, because they’re hoping to avoid prosecution and/or financial damages – but then their apology is a worthless chickenshit lie.
Frankly, I hope Peru sues them into oblivion, them and their “message of hope.”
(Brace yourselves – here comes a wild sociological claim…)
This is in keeping with something that seems to be happening more and more in the last few years: public figure or organisation does something contemptible, or just a bit daft, and then apologises for offence caused in doing the thing, rather than the thing itself.
Gary Barlow did it when apologising for being shifty with his tax affairs: he apologised for causing offence. Greenpeace is doing it now.
I’d bet that very few Peruvians were offended by GP. (Even fewer were offended by Mr Barlow’s tax arrangements.) So it’s a non-apology for something that didn’t happen. But it does give the impression that Greenpeace cares, and that it’s all about feelings. And, as you say, it is cowardly… but it’s also a bit mendacious.
More than a bit.
I’d like preemptively to apologise to Greenpeace for any offen… Oh, sod it.
I have noticed that miscreants tend to bundle a lot of things into the category of “offense” but I don’t recall noticing it with something this obviously tangible and physical and destructive. I don’t recall, say, BP trying to pretend the oil spill was a mere matter of “offending” the birds and shrimp and people and coast and Gulf of Mexico, and “appearing” careless and crass.
If this is a trend I WANT IT STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.
“Offence” has become really stretched now. It has a legitimate meaning. If Greenpeace had made silly jokes about llamas or Andean pipes they could then apologise for causing offence and being careless and crass. Peruvians shouldn’t be offended by someone damaging an important site, they should be furious, as I would be if a bunch of Peruvian demonstrators blu-tacked a sign on pictures by Turner, leaving greasy marks.
Also, why is it a question of suing? What they did is criminal damage. That’s a criminal matter, not a civil one. (May be different in Peru, of course.)
Of course the narcissists at Greenpeace don’t get it, their mission is far more important than some crappy old lines in the desert, and the public should understand.
Jesus h christ wouldn’t you think an environmental group of all groups would be able to grasp the difference between “causing offense” and doing irreparable damage to a part of the earth?
This. If they’re any kind of environmentalists, they know damn well there are places like tundras and deserts and dunes and alpine meadows where walking by big heavy animals like us leaves long-term damage. Hell, I’ve guilty thoughts when geocaching in rocky (ie: lichens) territory in Ontario, and I’m no big-shot environmentalist. So you stay on the designated trail, or maybe you don’t go there at all.
But Greenpeace long ago stopped being about fixing real problems and became just a source of employment for the people running it.
So, basically, their not-apology took the classic form of “we’re sorry that you were offended.”
Indeed, Eamon. I mean, even in run-of-the-mill urban natural areas here in Seattle there are signs saying to stay on the paths in order not to mess up the marsh, native plants, nesting areas, etc etc etc etc. I doubt the Greenpeace activists are totally unfamiliar with that kind of thing, let alone the underlying concept.
I agree about the irony, but I think the “irreparable damage” claim is hyperbole.
Not according to the official quoted in the story I posted yesterday. He said the footprints will be there for centuries or more. That could have been hyperbole too, but we don’t know that and we’re not in a position to find out. I don’t think we get to decide oh well they didn’t do that much damage. The site is closed for a reason.
Ah, but that’s where you went wrong! They are only interested in the significance of natural environments; the Nazca lines are a blight the pure nature by those pesky hairless monkeys and is therefore not important. Drop an apology that doesn’t admit anything to pretend that you give a shit, and hey presto! The cause of nature has been advanced.
Ophelia,
“Castillo said that no one is allowed into the area where the activists went without prior authorization, and that those who do get permission are required to wear special shoes so as not to disturb the patterns in the dirt.”
Apparently, for technical reasons, it is not possible for people wearing special shoes to smooth out those pesky footprints.
@10 said, “I agree about the irony, but I think the “irreparable damage” claim is hyperbole.”
No it’s not. Desert “pavements” like that are extremely fragile. And those louts left a trail to their banner site and you can see where they were walking and kneeling (clearly shown in their videos). Wearing running shoes and hiking boots. The few people who actually walk out to the lines wear special boots.
Here’s the AFTER picture, with the damaged area circled in red: http://cde.3.elcomercio.pe/ima/0/1/0/1/9/1019591.jpg
DAMN.
That’s not enhanced at all?
It’s way worse than I was imagining. It’s horrifying.
@13 Tsu Dho Nimh,
Yes, “Desert “pavements” like that are extremely fragile.” — and stable, so the claim isn’t hyperbole.
The lines are still visible, for at least 1000 years, since the site was abandoned.
I keep running into the Greenpeace reps at the local shopping/ tourist areas here, and they’re just such arrogant self righteous pratts that I can’t even take the time to talk to them. I mean their sales pitch is “Got a minute? Want to save the world?” Just typical arrogant teens who know everything.
Smoothing out pesky footprints is another disturbance, another alteration, another intervention. The do not enter rule is there for a reason.
The lines were actual made by clearing stones that were lying there. The contrast is between the natural stony ground and cleared ground. Any footprint or smoothed footprint in the area is messing with a very delicate heritage.
Echoing Ophelia I don’t think Greenpeace or John Morales get to decide how significant the site is (that’s a decision for the traditional owners initially, ranging up to a global interest humanity shares). Greenpeace and John also don’t get to decide what level of intervention is damaging. We need to defer that decision to someone who actually knows a lot about the site.
It’s worse than “we’re sorry that you were offended.” The second paragraph is essentially saying “but what we’re really sorry about is the damage to our brand.”
As I’ve said elsewhere, for years, Greenpeace, with this kind of stunt, has been trying to become the PETA of the environmental movement. I think they’ve finally arrived there.
Weatherwax, I may have to bring this up next time Greenpeace shakes a collection tin at me.
The area of damage is a outrageous (just saw the images). They’ve avoided the iconic and pretty hummingbird but they’ve tramped right through a straight line.
I suppose there was a time when I thought Greenpeace was OK, if wrong in some of their causes. Protesting nuke testing in the Pacific, yes; nuclear power, no; Newfoundland sealers, mixed feelings. But I wrote them off when we got a “survey” in the mail labelled “Community Toxic Report”, asking questions about how worried we were about toxins in the drinking water, and all the available answers worked out to “Yes, we’re scared shitless”. That must have been like, 20 years ago.
What is the date of the Greenpeace offense? And what is the date on the picture allegedly showing the damage?
I am still waiting to see what the actual damage was before jumping to conclusions.
Insensitive? Probably. Actual damage?……
Jumping to conclusions about what? Whether or not it was ok to enter a closed site?
You know quite well – jumping to conclusions about the damage done. You have made accusations without proof. Your post is more than about entering a closed site.
An hysterical blog without facts. Yes, they entered without permission. Yes, it was insensitive to the people there. Just as they apologized for.
If it turns out there is damage done to the site, I’m all for holding them accountable.
Once I see proof,
james139, your hyperscepticism regarding whether damage was done is not warranted.
Have you seen the follow-up post post to this?
Thanks for the follow-up. But I don’t see how this changes anything. The picture shown does not show damage that may not have already been there before. There is a link to a photo in that follow-up that shows the photo going around that looks to show more damage but from last August, according to the time stamp.
Again, where’s the proof of damage?
People thousands of miles from Peru don’t have “proof” of damage to the ancient site. So what? The site is closed to foot traffic to protect it from damage, so Greenpeace should have stayed off it. Peruvian officials have said the site is damaged, which is more relevant than the demands of distant people for “proof” of damage.
Never mind. Rude. Gone.
Wow. What a need to defend yourself and your writing. Are you trying to become relevant? If someone does not agree with your hyperbole then they are rude?
Even a Peruvian newspaper is showing the photo from last August as “proof”. How does everyone ignore the timestamp? This picture was before Greenpeace walked in there, right?
Are they dumbasses? You bet! But we are seeing character assassination from all corners of the world against a group which tries really hard to help. Did they screw up with this idea? I think so. I would never have supported them doing this. Even without damage to the site. Definitely insensitive. Geez, they could have just photoshopped it on there for a similar message. Yes, Greenpeace should have stayed off of it. However your writings are more than about trespassing…
They are facing possible prison sentences. Let’s see the proof.
There are people out there just waiting to put down activists – I just can’t believe this Free-thought site would be so quick to judge and condemn. It almost feels like groupthink in action.
“So what” there is no proof? Then “So what” to your writing. It seems to be really easy for you to dismiss someone being far away as not being relevant. Perhaps someone far away writing about it without proof is just as irrelevant? I hope Peru will be more fair and accurate to them.
Why truth matters indeed.
No, not “if someone does not agree with my hyperbole then they are rude.” You said in response to my question that I knew very well what you meant; that’s rude. I didn’t know because you didn’t spell it out and I don’t know you. And you called this “an hysterical blog without facts” – as your third comment ever here. Yes, you’re very rude. No, I don’t have to throw open the doors to rude people. If you can manage to stop huffing you can keep commenting.
I do not see how your not knowing me or this being only my third post matters. But I am sorry I was rude. I did assume you would understand the point I was making as I believed it was fairly clear what I was objecting to. And I assumed you were evading that point.
I have not seen you comment on the actual issue I was referring to – did damage actually occur at the site?
At this point I am still wondering if you see my point, on speaking out about damage done without it being confirmed that there was actual damage. An official stating there was damage is not good enough. It is not evidence of the charges of damage.
If it turns out there is real damage to the site, I will be agreeing 100% with your post about how it was terribly wrong to do what they did (I agree with you that It is still wrong that they went there in the first place and trespassed).
I would prefer to wait for the full story to come out however before I judge them.
james – ok, thank you. (Why my not knowing you & your newness at commenting matters – just the normal way such things do matter. People who have established relationships of some sort have more leeway to express momentary irritation than total strangers do, that’s all. You were too vehement for a total stranger, at least on such a debatable point. [If I’d maligned your best friend, for instance, vehemence would have been more understandable.])
Well you’re right that I’ve been taking the official’s word for it about the damage, but I don’t see any particular reason not to. It’s not an extraordinary claim. An ordinary claim doesn’t require extra levels of confirmation.
It’s a tragedy of the commons problem, I suppose. Fragile sites are closed to protect them, but individuals like to tell themselves “I won’t do any damage if I’m careful” so then a thousand individuals break in and the sites are damaged. Greenpeace doesn’t get to decide Greenpeace is exempt from the closure of the site. I see no reason at all to assume they didn’t do any damage and place the burden of proof on Peru.
Greenpeace and the Peruvian authorities agree on the fact that there was damage, and what the damage consists of.
Well what would they know about it??!
/sarcasm
It is funny to see people arguing a fact that is stipulated.
You’d be stunned by the timestamps on any pictures I take today – 16/12/2014. I didn’t even know there were sixteen months in the year! Oh, wait, different nations format the time codes differently.