· Greenpeace -vs- Sea Shepherd ·
I read Typing is Activism's post today, "Greenpeace is lying and stealing your money". In short, the post argues that Sea Shepherd's motives are pure, whereas Greenpeace is motivated by its marketing machine.
(Very basic background: Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace are both activist organisations trying to stop the Japanese from hunting wales. The organisations don't get along.)
This seems to be a common scenario in our sector unfortunately. You could easily substitute "Greenpeace" and "Sea Shepherd" for any number of apparently rival non-profit organisations. They are working to achieve the same end, yet in the process are arguing over method and motivation. This is damaging, not only because the disagreements cause them to lose sight of their goal, but if the arguments get out of hand it also makes them look foolish in the eyes of the public.
So should a non-profit remain pure-of-heart, never compromising on its principles? Or should a non-profit make a few compromises to ensure that as many people as possible learn about the issues?
Ahem, I'm not taking sides ... I'm interested in the ethics rather than the issue today :)
Monday February 11, 2008
Categories: Campaigning
Commenting is closed for this article.
Hey P.
I agree – when working at <unnamed environmental NGO> we encountered this a lot. Certain other NGOs v. quick to put the boot in during a media beatup, or just when they got a bit of air.
There was a clear policy in the comms team that I worked at never to bad-mouth another NGO. Period. It doesn’t help anyone – and it’s exactly the kind of tactic that supports some of the “opposition” (i.e. government, business etc.).
They are usually well organised and good at putting forward a consistent message. And yet here’s the NGOs, bickering as usual, can’t decide what they want.
Of course, it’s not all bad – many NGOs work well together and help support each other. But it’s unfortunately rather rare.
Re: your final question – it depends on the NGO, and the field of grey between one end of the spectrum and the other is huge. Personally – I think it’s important we have both – each plays their role. But, what I choose to support (with my time, and occasionally money) is the organisation that is open, willing and able to engage with the organisations that are doing harm, rather than those that can only “shout” at them.
The line is grey, though. At what point on the continuum does an organisation “sell out”? I think that’s a personal choice – and it’s that personal choice that I think gets lost some time. I have friends that are vegans and can’t stand it if an environmental organisation doesn’t denounce eating meat. I have others that work in investment banking funding massive windfarms one day, and trading currency the next. There’s no black & white answer IMHO.
— Grant 12 February 2008 #
Ahhhhh, yet another tiresome article slagging off Greenpeace by Sea Shepherd head Paul Watson. Being an ex-Greenpeacer himself, it all just sounds like sour grapes really.
Doesn’t he realise the more he harps on about how bad Greenpeace is, the more he is just directing the debate towards how the two organisations don’t get on rather than the real issue of saving whales. It seems his marketing tactic is to slag off Greenpeace in the hope that would-be GP supporters will head over to Sea Shepherd.
There are loads of environmental organisations in the world all competing for the same dollar and working on the same issues. They all have a place, whether their campaigning tactics differ or not. I think this should be respected.
— Greenfoot 12 February 2008 #
I think that the premise is disingenuously presented, as the article by Watson is remarkable not for the fact that it slags off Greenpeace, but for the fact that it doesn’t. Instead, it details the facts behind the perceived “dispute”.
And the idea that these NGOs are after ‘the same dollar’ is laughable. Conservative upper middle class donors will most likely be comfortable donating to Greenpeace, they’re not sought after by Sea Shepherd. Human Society International, ACF, ALF, ELF, RSPCA, TWS – all have different missions, deifferent appeal, different m.o.s and differing areas of efficacy.
As a writer/ interviewer my experience has been that Sea Shepherd employees and volunteers are generally keen not to talk about Greenpeace, whereas in their media releases and interviews Greenpeace are keen to criticize and slag the Shepherds. Typing Is Not Activism when it is a half-informed opinion fired off from a desk chair by somebody with no proximity to an issue, either by experience or involvement. Yet the transmission of such opinions is something that Greenpeace does brand as activism, hence their “army of online activists”.
Every stone they throw at direct action volunteers comes back on them times ten and by association corrodes their credibility in areas where they do have something really solid to offer, such as GMO-related issues. That’s a shame, but it is also bloody-minded self-aggrandisement with which they would do well to ultimately dispense.
— typingisnotactivism 12 February 2008 #
typingisnotactivism — really? not sure how much fact is in Paul Watson’s article. And it’s interesting to see that he has posted this article on his website.
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_080205_1.html
It seems pretty thick and heavy in slagging off GP.
Can’t see anything on the GP website slagging of the Sea Shepherd.
Seems rather one-sided to me.
— Greenfoot 14 February 2008 #
Using google advanced search…
Number of pages with “Greenpeace” on seashepherd.org: 1,790
Number of pages with “Sea Shepherd” OR “Paul Watson” on greenpeace.org: 513
— Andrew 15 February 2008 #