As far as I could find out, they used orange cornflour that will just wash off the next time it rains. The most amount of damage anyone could seriously bring up was that it could harm/displace the lichen on the henge.
That’s not to say that I specifically condone the action, but it’s a lot less bad than this article makes it sound. It’s the same with the soup attack on one of van Gogh’s painting, which had protective glass on it. So far all the JSO actions targeting cultural/historical things (at least the ones that made it to the big news) have been done in a way that makes them sound awful at first hearing, but intentionally did not actually damage the targeted cultural/historical thing.
I think the biases of the journalist/news outlet/etc. are somewhat exposed by which parts they focus on and which they downplay or omit entirely.
I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.
Also, orange dye can easily get into cracks in the rocks and stay there for a very long time. Especially if it displaces the lichens. That won’t make it collapse, so maybe ‘damage’ is not the right word, but this is potentially long-lasting vandalism which, as far as I can see, will have no effect on the actual problem.
I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.
Which brings me back to the last point in my comment. I also hope I’m right but the two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result and also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was “No visible damage”.
As I said, I’m not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.
To play devil’s advocate against the devil’s advocate, I’m not sure “Stonehenge covered with orange corn starch by Just Stop Oil activists” would have communicated the kind of emergency these activists are hoping to convey, so they’re clearly counting on the headline grabbing people’s attention and triggering their outrage meter. In that way, the journalist might even think they’re helping the JSO group.
I agree, I think they’ve been remarkably responsible about avoiding lasting damage. What upsets me is how they’re fueling the far-right rage machine with more propaganda ammunition at a time when we are already fighting a fierce and undecided battle to live in a world that isn’t run by exclusionary ideological nationalistic idiots.
It’s like they cannot understand that some people don’t want the world saved, and agree with Hitler when he wrote about the tears of war being the bread of future generations. A sentiment that basically says suffering=good. So, more suffering=better. Will climate change cause suffering? Well, guess what then.
As far as I could find out, they used orange cornflour that will just wash off the next time it rains. The most amount of damage anyone could seriously bring up was that it could harm/displace the lichen on the henge.
That’s not to say that I specifically condone the action, but it’s a lot less bad than this article makes it sound. It’s the same with the soup attack on one of van Gogh’s painting, which had protective glass on it. So far all the JSO actions targeting cultural/historical things (at least the ones that made it to the big news) have been done in a way that makes them sound awful at first hearing, but intentionally did not actually damage the targeted cultural/historical thing.
I think the biases of the journalist/news outlet/etc. are somewhat exposed by which parts they focus on and which they downplay or omit entirely.
I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.
Also, orange dye can easily get into cracks in the rocks and stay there for a very long time. Especially if it displaces the lichens. That won’t make it collapse, so maybe ‘damage’ is not the right word, but this is potentially long-lasting vandalism which, as far as I can see, will have no effect on the actual problem.
Which brings me back to the last point in my comment. I also hope I’m right but the two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result and also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was “No visible damage”.
As I said, I’m not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.
To play devil’s advocate against the devil’s advocate, I’m not sure “Stonehenge covered with orange corn starch by Just Stop Oil activists” would have communicated the kind of emergency these activists are hoping to convey, so they’re clearly counting on the headline grabbing people’s attention and triggering their outrage meter. In that way, the journalist might even think they’re helping the JSO group.
I agree, I think they’ve been remarkably responsible about avoiding lasting damage. What upsets me is how they’re fueling the far-right rage machine with more propaganda ammunition at a time when we are already fighting a fierce and undecided battle to live in a world that isn’t run by exclusionary ideological nationalistic idiots.
It’s like they cannot understand that some people don’t want the world saved, and agree with Hitler when he wrote about the tears of war being the bread of future generations. A sentiment that basically says suffering=good. So, more suffering=better. Will climate change cause suffering? Well, guess what then.