Human Interest

In today's world, we often run into situations where preservation and advancement are at odds with one another. Instances where sites or areas are protected by historical or cultural heritage societies is just one such example. As a result, these places are often barred from making improvements or changes that would improve the quality of life for the people living there. Some places, however, also possess a natural geography that is significant and culturally valuable to the people living there. To change or mar these geographic landmarks is considered incredibly disrespectful and inconsiderate, as is the case with this Greenpeace blunder in Peru. 

The incident described in this article also seems to represent a kind of disconnect between the developed and developing worlds. Many times, developed nations feel it is there job to police the practices and beliefs of their less developed neighbors. This, of course, is a very insulting and elitist approach to enacting change that these countries see as positive. Often, the cultures and practices of these places are scorned for the sake of "progress" or "advancement", when in reality, these powerful countries are using their almost unquestioned influence to get their message across using the context of smaller, less powerful countries. Organizations and countries that are truly proponents of change and progress must strike a balance between cultural respect and effective methods. 

People make mistakes with the best of intentions, and this is certainly a case of just that. Greenpeace hoped to make a lasting impression on world leaders by creating a powerful symbol illustrating the need for the world's leaders to embark on a policy of environmental conservatism; instead, they insulted the Peruvian government and desecrated a national heritage site. I feel like something like this would never have happened in a powerful Western nation; could you imagine the outrage if a historical site like the location of the Battle of Gettysburg or Jefferson's home of Monticello had been altered in such a away? Or if this sign had been hung from Big Ben or the Eiffel Tower? I feel like this group completely disregarded the sensitivities of the Peruvian government because it is only a "middle power," a nation that could easily be trumped by the group's ambitions- in short, that the nations concerns did not matter because it was "only" Peru. I find that train of thought extremely insulting and dangerous within the context of international relations- if smaller nations can be disregarded so easily in Western circles, what does that say for the future of global politics? An apology and, more importantly, a restoration project are in order, and Peru is right to demand them. I, too, would be insulted by Greenpeace's actions.

an environmental group disturbing on of the regions where man has been banned from going is insane. how do you justify defacing one of the last truly pristine places on earth, where people haven't walked for centuries, for the sake of some Eco-terrorism. did you not think through the response that this act would inspire, and if so, how did you become so dense?