• Funderpants @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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.

    • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      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 🤷‍♂️ ).

      • The Octonaut
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        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?

        • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Stonehenge has been around for millennia, not since the 1950s. What are you talking about?

          • The Octonaut
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            stonehenge

            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).