Greenpeace's Argument Against Nuclear War

Greenpeace’s prominent original members all opposed nuclear war; Irving and Dorothy Stowe and Jim and Marie Bohlen left the United States because of the nation’s decision to continue advancing its nuclear bomb collection. Both couples immigrated to Canada and brought their environmental concerns with them. Most of the prominent names associated and credited with establishing the society were males; a few exceptions to female involvement, such as Dorothy Stowe and Marie Bohlen’s participation, although they were married to men actively dedicated to the cause. These male founders were nonviolent and their ambition was not to stop the nuclear bomb threat but instead they wanted to demonstrate their opposition. “Greenpeace’s founders were

The middle class men were quite biased at time because they thought their view to be superior. This bias had the greatest impact on the working class (Harter 103). This bias limited their view; Greenpeace member’s position on certain issues was partly due to their comfortable class in society. Due to the fact that these men were accustomed to thinking and acting in a particular manner it was easy for them to assume that they rest of the world were similar-minded. This was not the case; the activists disregarded the working-classes concerns. In the beginning the relationship between the environmentalists and the workers was not great. The environmentalists were very narrow-minded and instead of negotiating with the working class the environmentalists decided to implement their own solution to the problem. There was no attempt at compromising; Greenpeace members were not considering that other people might have a difference of opinion. A prominent example of environmentalists disconcert for the working class occurred during the organizations attempt to ban the seal hunt in Newfoundland and Inuit communities. The middle class environmentalists were unable establish a beneficial relationship with the working class and the result had negative effects for the working class (Harter p?). Not only did this approach have a negative impact on the local economies it also interfered with the community’s way of life. Natives had relied on seals for a way of life for centuries; seal was a very important and essential product. It had both economic value, created culture and working-class solidarity amongst the sealing community (Harter). The Greenpeace campaign was not considerate to the local’s values and excluded them completely. Instead the professionals from the middle class