By that I mean that like many organisations
Greenpeace started out as my kind of organisation.
It had a purpose,
linking environmental and peace issues by protesting against hydrogen bomb testing
in Alaska was their first project,
in Alaska was their first project,
this is in 1971
that was before I was born, just, a long time ago.
Anyway the problem I have with Greenpeace is that they are just so ridged and blinkered
by that I mean (this may be my catchphrase for 2011)
there is a disregard for humans, for cultures and poverty.
So I love it when I read an article from someone like Patrick Moore
who is one of the founders of Greenpeace
who has, as he puts it diverged from Greenpeace a wee while ago.
But read for yourself his interview in the Vancouver Sun
So this raises the issue that faces many idealistic and well meaning groups,
having been involved with a few myself.
A small group starts out, all pure and good,
focused on reforming a goal
serendipity occurs, synergy is generated,
people are attracted to the dynamic cause
those people bring their own ideas
often more extreme and narrow in their scope
thus the group loses it's flavour, it's passion.
To be fair (sorry last year's catch phrase)
sometimes the new people bring good things
but in the case of Greenpeace they just seem to have become
uncaring, PR grabbing, manipulating loonies.
It's the authoritarian, know better attitude that is the problem
maybe this comes from being a corporate charity.
Captain Paul Watson,
captain of Sea Shepherd Steve Irwin (that's a boat by the way)
wrote this about Greenpeace
The Other Whaling Industry
I totally support those who are passionate about whatever issue it is
and protest peacefully and unobtrusively
allowing all of us to form our own opinion at our own pace in our way.
In principle, on the surface I don't disagree with what Greenpeace does
it's just the money oriented, huge juggernaut of a monstar they have become that I find problematic.
What say you?
Greenpeace's website
So I love it when I read an article from someone like Patrick Moore
who is one of the founders of Greenpeace
who has, as he puts it diverged from Greenpeace a wee while ago.
But read for yourself his interview in the Vancouver Sun
So this raises the issue that faces many idealistic and well meaning groups,
having been involved with a few myself.
A small group starts out, all pure and good,
focused on reforming a goal
serendipity occurs, synergy is generated,
people are attracted to the dynamic cause
those people bring their own ideas
often more extreme and narrow in their scope
thus the group loses it's flavour, it's passion.
To be fair (sorry last year's catch phrase)
sometimes the new people bring good things
but in the case of Greenpeace they just seem to have become
uncaring, PR grabbing, manipulating loonies.
It's the authoritarian, know better attitude that is the problem
maybe this comes from being a corporate charity.
Captain Paul Watson,
captain of Sea Shepherd Steve Irwin (that's a boat by the way)
wrote this about Greenpeace
The Other Whaling Industry
I totally support those who are passionate about whatever issue it is
and protest peacefully and unobtrusively
allowing all of us to form our own opinion at our own pace in our way.
In principle, on the surface I don't disagree with what Greenpeace does
it's just the money oriented, huge juggernaut of a monstar they have become that I find problematic.
What say you?
Greenpeace's website
When asked if I'd join/donate to Greenpeace I declined saying I agreed with some of their ideas, but not all, or the way they do things.
ReplyDelete