You're viewing a single thread.
What does stone henge have to do with climate change? Is it owned by a oil company? Is it spewing emissions from a hidden tail pipe?
Nothing really, but the protest does shine a light on humanities superficial respect for historically important monuments and cultural sites especially when it comes to climate change.
Stonehenge is a culturally important site, no doubt about it, and the reaction to the protest has been swift and strong and includes criminal charges. But the same state that condemns these actions in the harshest terms is timid in the face of the much more destructive acts of climate change.
Where is the outrage over the climate driven erosion of the Cliffs of Dover? Or the surge risk to the tower Of London? Or Orkney Islands? Not even to mention the risks to human health, food production, invasive species, and fires.
Personally, I'm done carrying water for big oil and climate deniers by focusing on the method of protest instead of the message.
Just a note for anyone disagreeing with the sentiment of my last line. I would have agreed with you a year or two ago, but then I read Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham jail and it changed my mind entirely on the nature of protest, nessecary tension, and the role of so called moderates in perpetuating injustice.
Give the letter a read, hear some analysis on it, it might change your mind like it did mine.
Do you have a link to the letter? I haven't heard of it before
Sure, here you go.
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Thanks!
very well said, carry on
protest does shine a light on humanities superficial respect for historically important monuments and cultural sites
Interestingly the former leader of the Taliban argued exactly the same way when asked why they destroyed some world famous statues in Afghanistan (but compared it to the total lack of care for the actual humans living in Afghanistan, which is ironic considering the source... but hey, everyone is the hero in their own story 🤷♂️ ).
Do you understand the difference between blowing up ancient statues with dynamite, and throwing some chalk on stones that have been in place since the 1950s?
Stonehenge has been around for millennia, not since the 1950s. What are you talking about?
The stones of Stonehenge have been there for millennia, yes, but they are only in their modern configuration since the 1950s, as a best guess reconstruction of something that had been lost long ago.
The Bamyan statues were much younger, but were largely intact as they had been for 1,400 years. And, y'know, got blown up rather than doused with a bit of colour (which frankly was probably a better recreation of what happened at the real Stonehenge than the LARPing the faux druids do).
It’s a great way to remind people of the disaster ahead, and force people to mention it. Even if in a bad tone, they still have to remind themselves that it exists .
Just Stop Oil targets culturally significant objects to highlight that the viewer's outrage at direct attacks on those objects is greater than the viewer's outrage at the same attacks against those objects by the creators of climate change.
If throwing washable paint on Stonehenge pisses you off, you should be even more angry at big oil for progressively destroying the entire planet. Any call for the arrest and immediate punishment of Just Stop Oil members should also match calls for the immediate punishment of big oil execs.
It's juvenile, but it's pointed.
but i've already been angry at them for that. why assume i wasn't? now i'm just also worried about historical sites. personally, so lost on what this accomplished
I once read a conspiracy theory that these "activists" are actually funded or hired by oil companies to lower peoples' respect for activists. Sounds plausible, but I've never seen proof or evidence.
I think it's a reference to the mechanisms under stone henge and the heat they produce, it has to reach the surface of Earth eventually.
If they’d just turn the damn thing off for a hundred years or so we’d have no problem
In another thread someone was arguing that stonehenge is valued. And it’s the implication that’s the message.
He didn’t elaborate on the implication, but he said “What do you think people are gonna do next if this doesn’t work?”
So maybe the strategy is just attack things people value until climate change is fixed
Which is, frankly, overwhelmingly stupid.
Activism can never ever ever ever ever achieve anything if it doest cause discomfort. A demonstration that doesn't block roads or disrupt services is just invisible. And causing damage to a landmark is disruptive and discomforting.
There is also the point that oil companies will just shoot you if you were to vandalise their office.
Perfect! Go find a list of parents with one child and punch those babies. Then figure out which grandparents have the most grandkids and stomp their feet. Next set an orphanage on fire when everyone is playing outside. All these things are exactly as related to climate change as putting beans on art or paint on Stonehenge.
Of course you are exactly right: this is why all the great protests you hear about for civil rights, women's rights, and reproductive rights all started by going where it was safe and fucking up some art and history.
You can have a disruptive impact and not be a totally entitled piece of shit.
“What do you think people are gonna do next if this doesn’t work?”
So maybe the strategy is just attack things people value until climate change is fixed
Which is, frankly, overwhelmingly stupid.
I'm pretty sure if they start killing oil executives and portfolio organisers things will start changing pretty sharpish.
This is also not "attacking things" it's attacking people. I can't argue against the fact that it might be effective though.
people are a subcategory of things