Share
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 23, 2008#26

but apparently not enough to know that both shell and the nigerian government admit that shell paid the nigerian military to murder ogoni people who protested the raping of their land with no compensation. of course shell wouldn't call it murder. actually i don't give a sh*t what you buy. if you're happy buying gas from shell then great. but don't act like you're so incensed by the idea of buying pastries from these "commies" when you're perfectly happy buying from shell. it's funny how this thread has devolved from supposed concern for a deceased cop into full-out mob-style bullying. and before you say that it hasn't, notice the single pancake advertisement followed by 2 or 3 pages of insults, as Matt pointed out earlier. it's pretty clear that you were just waiting for an excuse to go off on anarchists ... again. as for the link, its one of the first examples that popped up when i typed "corporate human rights violations" into google. i'm sure there are many many more examples. maybe even a few that you would accept as legitimate, CS! i suppose i could go ask the poly-sci or the law people here on campus for a few more ... anyway, your "tin horn dictator" comment hardly refutes the point: get down off your high horse. if you don't agree with black bear, then don't patronized them. i'm sure they won't miss you. but you're hardly qualified to judge the entire group. unless you're jesus. are you jesus?



ok, i'm done with this. i will continue to read all the kind comments though. can't wait for the next zinger, CS!
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostFeb 23, 2008#27

urban_dilettante wrote:but apparently not enough to know that both shell and the nigerian government admit that shell paid the nigerian military to murder ogoni people who protested the raping of their land with no compensation.


Of course, you have a link to this (from a legitimate news outlet - CNN, MSNBC, etc). No? I didn't think so.




urban_dilettante wrote:of course shell wouldn't call it murder. actually i don't give a sh*t what you buy. if you're happy buying gas from shell then great.


Yep, I'm quite a happy buying from Shell. Thanks for asking.


urban_dilettante wrote:...but don't act like you're so incensed by the idea of buying pastries from these "commies" when you're perfectly happy buying from shell.


Of course, you can show me where I called them "commies", right? No? I didn't think so.


urban_dilettante wrote:it's funny how this thread has devolved from supposed concern for a deceased cop into full-out mob-style bullying. and before you say that it hasn't, notice the single pancake advertisement followed by 2 or 3 pages of insults, as Matt pointed out earlier. it's pretty clear that you were just waiting for an excuse to go off on anarchists ... again.


If you followed the thread (as you say you did), you'll notice that these people are not anarchists. So how can I go off on anarchists who are not anarchists? That would be quite a feat!


urban_dilettante wrote:as for the link, its one of the first examples that popped up when i typed "corporate human rights violations" into google. i'm sure there are many many more examples. maybe even a few that you would accept as legitimate, CS!


Somehow, I doubt it. I am a critical thinker, you know.


urban_dilettante wrote:i suppose i could go ask the poly-sci or the law people here on campus for a few more ... anyway, your "tin horn dictator" comment hardly refutes the point: get down off your high horse. if you don't agree with black bear, then don't patronized them.


I won't. But I at least wanted to extend them the courtesy of letting them know why I wasn't patronizing them.


urban_dilettante wrote:i'm sure they won't miss you. but you're hardly qualified to judge the entire group. unless you're jesus. are you jesus?


No. If you have read any history, Jesus (if he existed) died some 2000 years ago.


urban_dilettante wrote:ok, i'm done with this. i will continue to read all the kind comments though. can't wait for the next zinger, CS!


Remember to provide those links before you go!
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostFeb 23, 2008#28

A Critical Analysis of Black Bear's Mission Statement



Black Bear Bakery is...

- an anti-authoritarian: They have no respect for anyone with power (authority.) Notice in their response they have never admitted it was wrong to kill a police officer? They only sympathized with the plight of the criminal. That's why they wanted the murderer freed, because to them, the police is the enemy.



I won't debate whether or not their group is authoritarian. What I will argue is that even "anarchists" respect rules and authority when they serve to benefit/protect them. You know, in case of an attempted robbery at the bakery, gratuitous destruction thereof, or assault and battery. Would they spurn police presence in these cases? Probably not, but if they did, what would they do? Perhaps vigilante justice? Sorry, there is no reason for such a response as anarchists don't respect the rule of law.



At their essence, therefore, they are delusional hypocrites.



- anti-ideological: If they were anti-ideological, they wouldn't have beliefs. There would just be pancakes and no delusion. And please, how does an anti-ideological group end up having a mission statement? Criminy!



- collective: They may not agree on everything, but their group has common objectives.



The project has four primary goals:



1. To produce healthy, affordable food using ecological methods.

A relatively harmless statement.



2. To foster consensus-based decision making in a dynamic environment that challenges division-of-labor and capital-based, hierarchical business.

Consensus-building is the cornerstone of democracy. It can thus be stated that Black Bear collective is a democratic group in their own right. I'm sorry, but this collective is clearly not anarchic in nature.



3. To present participants with opportunities and tools for sustenance and individual growth in a worker controlled and operated bakery.

Ok.



4. To organize and embrace anarchic grassroots agitation, information, and action.

Why agitate if you have no ideology? Oh, you'd like to coerce others into accepting your ideology of chaos. I see.



What is the purpose of information in an anti-ideological collective? Information forms the basis for ideology which is the enemy of this collective. There should only be an ideological vacuum. And baked goods.



Action? As enemies of ideology, the only action should be baking. Instead, they spread their anti-ideological ideology.
205
Junior MemberJunior Member
205

PostFeb 23, 2008#29

I don't see where you made the connection from anti-authoritarian to anti-ideological. Clearly anarchists are not anti-ideological because anarchy is an ideology.



The only hypocritical aspect to this group is that they are anti-capitalists running a business--and they admit to this. But in a capitalistic society, there really isn't any other choice for survival, is there?
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 23, 2008#30

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/06 ... index.html



^ i really enjoyed the euphemisms in this one.



http://www.stanford.edu/group/SICD/Shell/shell.html



^ several links at the bottom.



will post more as i come across them. enjoy.



p.s. i didn't say you called them commies. that was my choice of words to emphasize how ridiculous this whole name-calling bullsh*t is. the quotes were there to indicate that it wasn't to be taken literally.



ok, i know i said i'm out but ...


If you followed the thread (as you say you did), you'll notice that these people are not anarchists. So how can I go off on anarchists who are not anarchists? That would be quite a feat!


apparently i stand rebutted. :lol:
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostFeb 23, 2008#31

brody wrote:I don't see where you made the connection from anti-authoritarian to anti-ideological. Clearly anarchists are not anti-ideological because anarchy is an ideology.
Please read carefully, brody. Their own mission states they are an anti-ideological and anti-authoritarian collective. They also claim to be anarchists. Therefore that argument further illuminates the level of hypocrisy and intellectual vacuousness in this "movement."


urban_dilettante wrote:... again. as for the link, its one of the first examples that popped up when i typed "corporate human rights violations" into google. i'm sure there are many many more examples.
This topic is about Black Bear Bakery. Random accusations against multinational corporations bear no consequence to this discussion. Please stay on topic.
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostFeb 23, 2008#32

Hah! :lol:



You all say you won't put your money into a place that supports a cop killer, and yet the multinational corporations we support on a daily basis without even thinking have contributed to political unrest abroad. You're right--that has nothing to do with the conversation!
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostFeb 23, 2008#33

urban_dilettante wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/06 ... index.html



^ i really enjoyed the euphemisms in this one.



http://www.stanford.edu/group/SICD/Shell/shell.html



^ several links at the bottom.


Your original claim was:


urban_dilettante wrote:but apparently not enough to know that both shell and the nigerian government admit that shell paid the nigerian military to murder ogoni people who protested the raping of their land with no compensation.


And yet there was no such admission in the CNN article you provided. You provide a link to support your assertion that doesn't support your assertion. Comical.



FYI: I just filled up at Shell a few minutes ago. I will sleep very soundly tonight.
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 23, 2008#34

right. because shell is going to allow their PR people to say "we murdered africans" in a press release. did you look at any of the other material?



by the way, i sometimes buy gas at shell too. but then, i haven't been assailing the black bear people for three pages for their supposed support of a cop killer while supporting such activity elsewhere in the world. anyway, i'm glad that shell makes you so glad. cause now we're both glad. :)



anyway, if all you had said was "i don't agree with black bear and i won't shop there" i would not take issue. but you (the royal you, that is) had to go on and on and on and on about how they're posers and anarchists and hypocrites (ironically) when all the guy was trying to do was advertise for a pancake breakfast.



this ganging-up crap happens way too much on this forum. it's like recess in kindergarten.

PostFeb 23, 2008#35

innov8ion wrote:
brody wrote:I don't see where you made the connection from anti-authoritarian to anti-ideological. Clearly anarchists are not anti-ideological because anarchy is an ideology.
Please read carefully, brody. Their own mission states they are an anti-ideological and anti-authoritarian collective. They also claim to be anarchists. Therefore that argument further illuminates the level of hypocrisy and intellectual vacuousness in this "movement."


urban_dilettante wrote:... again. as for the link, its one of the first examples that popped up when i typed "corporate human rights violations" into google. i'm sure there are many many more examples.
This topic is about Black Bear Bakery. Random accusations against multinational corporations bear no consequence to this discussion. Please stay on topic.


^HILARIOUS! this thread has been off topic since the second post! the topic of the thread is PANCAKE BREAKFAST! you need to lock this thread and start a "lets b*tch about anarchists" thread if you're so concerned about staying on topic. this is not appropriate for this forum.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostFeb 23, 2008#36

urban_dilettante wrote:right. because shell is going to allow their PR people to say "we murdered africans" in a press release. did you look at any of the other material?



by the way, i sometimes buy gas at shell too. but then, i haven't been assailing the black bear people for three pages for their supposed support of a cop killer while supporting such activity elsewhere in the world. anyway, i'm glad that shell makes you so glad. cause now we're both glad. :)



anyway, if all you had said was "i don't agree with black bear and i won't shop there" i would not take issue. but you (the royal you, that is) had to go on and on and on and on about how they're posers and anarchists and hypocrites (ironically) when all the guy was trying to do was advertise for a pancake breakfast.



this ganging-up crap happens way too much on this forum. it's like recess in kindergarten.


It's interesting to note that you have posted 3 times since this:


urban_dilettante wrote:ok, i'm done with this. i will continue to read all the kind comments though. can't wait for the next zinger, CS!


That says a lot about you.



Yes, I read all of the material. None of it supports your claim. Odd, that.
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostFeb 23, 2008#37

Matt Drops The H wrote:Hah! :lol:



You all say you won't put your money into a place that supports a cop killer, and yet the multinational corporations we support on a daily basis without even thinking have contributed to political unrest abroad. You're right--that has nothing to do with the conversation!
To just flatly demonize corporations is one of the cheaper rhetorical tricks in the book. Such a strategy of deflection does not surprise me coming from a mindset defending delusion and hypocrisy.



Please understand something about the world. The culture in every location is distinct. One of the incidents you highlighted was in Colombia, a nation rife with corruption and run by drug lords. A company operating in a given environment will be forced to play by that environment's rules. If the local environment is tainted, you can imagine that some of that company's decisions may be tainted as well. Yet in balance, there is the greater good of investing in that area and providing desired services.



Am I going to stop eating because a company may provide food or other services in countries that have problems with stability and corruption, which may result in some undesirable outcomes? No. I and others realize that the world is imperfect and move on with our psyches intact.



But Black Bear Bakery's core beliefs are hypocritical and delusional. This is clear from my analysis which has yet to be successfully disputed by anyone. Before I thought that BBB was just a bakery run by harmless nutters. But the more I think about it, delusion and hypocrisy are dangerous. I am of the belief that BBB should be actively boycotted.


urban_dilettante wrote:^HILARIOUS! this thread has been off topic since the second post! the topic of the thread is PANCAKE BREAKFAST! you need to lock this thread and start a "lets b*tch about anarchists" thread if you're so concerned about staying on topic. this is not appropriate for this forum.
Black Bear Bakery has created quite the poor reputation in St. Louis due to their fringe and dangerous ideology. The topic is Black Bear and Black Bear is what we speak to expose its essence.



Admins, please lock the thread.
205
Junior MemberJunior Member
205

PostFeb 23, 2008#38

innov8ion wrote:
brody wrote:I don't see where you made the connection from anti-authoritarian to anti-ideological. Clearly anarchists are not anti-ideological because anarchy is an ideology.
Please read carefully, brody. Their own mission states they are an anti-ideological and anti-authoritarian collective. They also claim to be anarchists. Therefore that argument further illuminates the level of hypocrisy and intellectual vacuousness in this "movement."
Okay, finally found what you're referring to. http://blackbearbakery.org/history.html



That is hypocritical, but I don't think the group is delusional. They just had a little slip-up in their nonconformist diction.



Anyway, the bakery's political disposition wouldn't prevent me from eating there. If the food's good, I'm interested.
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostFeb 23, 2008#39

^^Didn't you know inno? Anyone what doesn't eschew global corporations and everything they produce is evil! Globalization is evil! Capitalism is evil! We must all revert to an agrarian society immediately or we are doomed. Of course, an agrarian economy still requires some type of organization, which is also inherently evil, so maybe we have to revert all the way back to hunters and gatherers. And I suspect most people wouldn't be able (or would be unwilling) to hunt to save their lives, so how are your gathering skills?
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostFeb 23, 2008#40

^ Precisely and which happens to result in the same endgame as that from the ideology of the man below. Screw it, we might as well go back to to the Dark Ages ages as I hear it was a lovely period in human civilization. I just got back from Prague where I viewed the Museum of Medieval Torture. Yeah, those guys had all the answers and life was so beautiful back then. See for yourself the pleasantries that the oppressed populace experienced: http://medieval-castles.org/index.php?cat=31



Gosh, I'm feeling so verklempt!


brody wrote:That is hypocritical, but I don't think the group is delusional. They just had a little slip-up in their nonconformist diction.
I'm glad you agree with the hypocrisy. Do you not also agree it delusional to believe in hypocrisy in not only one but multiple domains?



Noncomformist diction? Succinctness is independent of conformity! Unless you believe that nonconformists are poor at communicating. Who knows, maybe the bad cookies throw them off.



2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostFeb 23, 2008#41

^The Black Bear Pancake people probably think that man lives in the White House with GWB, where they, along with D*ck Cheney, Carl Rove, Reagan's head, the Israelis, and the big oil companies, all get together to plot things like 9/11 and the Iraq War so they can take over the world. :lol: Seriously, they probably do...
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostFeb 23, 2008#42

The chocolate chip cookies at this place are not very good, fyi. They are dry and cakey, not very appetizing.
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostFeb 24, 2008#43

I'm not going to lock the thread, but enough with the anarchy and corporation, etc. talk. Does every thread need to devolve into a debate that is not needed?
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostFeb 24, 2008#44

^ Well, the bakery's core tenets are anti-corporation, anti-authority, anarchy, etc. Honestly, what did you expect, Matt? For this bakery the pancakes are the way to feed you their anti-ideological ideology. Their anti-capitalist capitalism. Their concensus-based democracy they call anarchy. See, if this bakery didn't support the killing of St. Louis' finest, this would all be quite humorous. Please notice, the owner never apologized for distributing t-shirts promoting the freeing of a criminal who was convicted for murder. I would like to say vile words against the Black Bear Bakery collective but have decided I am above that. :)



That and apparently their chocolate chip cookies aren't the best. Oh well, at least they're superb at offending a strong majority of St. Louisans. Leave it to the fringe to defend them as we observe here.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostFeb 24, 2008#45

MattnSTL wrote:I'm not going to lock the thread, but enough with the anarchy and corporation, etc. talk. Does every thread need to devolve into a debate that is not needed?


Since the thread started as an advertisement for the Black Bear Bakery, I'm not entirely sure what it is even about anymore. :?
466
Full MemberFull Member
466

PostFeb 24, 2008#46

well maybe these guys just have their "ideology" a little wonky, but i've met a few of these people outside the bakery and i don't think that they are pro murder no matter what your profession is. instead, why not vote with your taste and try a thing or two from them. i happen to like that place. they make good bread.
1
New MemberNew Member
1

PostFeb 24, 2008#47

What I am hearing is a lot of knee jerk reactions with not a whole lot of analysis. There are two issues.

First. Black bear is a bakery that is biased on certain anti-authoritarian principles.

Two is the situation surrounding a guy named kevin Johnoson.

It is my understanding that Black bear backery sold the T-shirts supporting him. Kevin has been given the death penalty for killing a cop.

I would imagine that Black bear does not support the death penalty and so their intentions behind supporting Kevin might be that they do not support the punishment based eye-for-eye type of "justice" that the legal system that kills people for killing others. I feel frustrated hearing people talking sh*t about "they support murderers" in such a vehement fiver when this guy is about to be killed by the same institution that your tax money goes to and there is no critique of that.

Also, not everyone knows what happened in kevins situation. Plus, being a black male one has a very different relationship to the cops in this city then if you are white. Here is the story that I heard that describes the events:



In July 2005, Kevin's younger, Joseph "Bam Bam" Long, collapsed in his home Meacham Park, St. Louis County. Bam Bam's grandma ran outside to ask the police - who were already at the scene messing with Kevin's car - to help. At first they did nothing, and continued running the car's information. Eventually, though, they did make their way inside, where they divided their time between standing around with their arms folded waiting for paramedics to arrive, and searching the house for Kevin, who had a warrant for a misdemeanor charge. Kevin watched from the house next-door as police repeatedly step over his dying brother as they walked around searching the house. When Officer McEntee arrived he was asked to remove Bam Bam's hysterical mother - an act that the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, has tried to portray as a kind and loving act, involving the two sitting on the porch with McEntee comforting Bam Bam's mother and holding her hand. Those at the scene recall something different: McEntee repeatedly pushing her out of the house and physically restraining her. This madness went on for close to twenty minutes and was ended on by the loading of Bam Bam into the ambulance.

Most of the family followed the ambulance to hospital, but before Bam Bam and Kevin's grandma could leave she was approached by Officers McEntee and Nelson who asked about Kevin. While talking to her, McEntee glanced nextdoor at the at the window Kevin was in. When their eyes met McEntee smiled at him. He nudged Nelson, pointed to window and they both smiled and then left.

After a half hour, Kevin's grandma returned with the sad news. When Kevin found out Bam Bam was dead, he was furious: he kicked his bedroom door off its hinges. He tried calming down some and decided to take a walk to try and cool down more, to try and sort through the overwhelming and confusing feelings he had.

At some point, Kevin encountered a Kirkwood police car. Kevin tried walking by without provoking a scene, but did glance over at the car. Sitting inside was Officer William McEntee, once again smiling at Kevin. This is where Kevin lost it. He turned to the car, pulled out his gun and unloaded seven rounds into McEntee's car. "This's what you get! This's for Bam Bam!" he yelled as he pulled the trigger. McEntee put the car in gear and accelerated up the street, while Kevin took off run down it.

At the intersection at the base of the street, he encountered a large crowd of people that his mother was in. She asked him what he'd done and what was going to happen to Kevin's two-year old daughter, Cori. Kevin took off in a dead sprint to see Cori one last time. He ran down a path between two houses that would let him out right next to his daughter's house. But when Kevin exited the gangway, he didn’t see the usual look of the front yards. Instead he stumbled upon the scene of McEntee struggling to get away from his crashed car. Kevin lost it again and shot McEntee once more.

Since that day in 2005, Kevin has had two trials for the murder of McEntee. The first was in March and ended in a hung jury: 10 for Murder in the Second Degree, 2 for Murder in the First. An account of this first trial can be found here: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... 4C16753036.



Black bear is based in certain radical politics which question the role of police in our society. So is it acceptable for Kevin to kill a cop? It's a complicated situation... for example, there are a lot of psychological dynamics that were going in Kevin's situation compounded with a lifetime of police repression a black male. Racial profiling anyone?



I am gonna stop here and let people respond.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostFeb 24, 2008#48

k_tron wrote:So is it acceptable for Kevin to kill a cop? It's a complicated situation... for example, there are a lot of psychological dynamics that were going in Kevin's situation compounded with a lifetime of police repression a black male. Racial profiling anyone?


No, it's not complicated. It's amazing that, once again, people like you can't bring themselves to say that it was wrong. Unbelievable.



So Rockhead murdered two people that day - Officer McEntee and "Bam-Bam". Was it wrong for him to murder "Bam-Bam"? Or is that "complicated" too? :roll:
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 24, 2008#49

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
It's interesting to note that you have posted 3 times since this:


urban_dilettante wrote:ok, i'm done with this. i will continue to read all the kind comments though. can't wait for the next zinger, CS!


That says a lot about you.


yeah. it speaks volumes. :roll: guess i need a psych evaluation.


Yes, I read all of the material. None of it supports your claim. Odd, that.


my apologies. change "paid" to "made a contract with" (i'm sure no money exchanged hands) and "murdered" to "violently surpressed" and now it does.



from the cnn link:



"Their fieldwork ... highlighted how the conflict makes it difficult for us to operate safely and with integrity, how we sometimes feed conflict by the way we award contracts, gain access to land, and deal with community representatives," it said.



from the standford link:


The families of Ken Saro-Wiwa and John Kpuinen filed suit in the New York District Courts against Royal/Dutch Shell for its role in the detention, trial and subsequent hanging of the two activists. The suit was filed on Friday November 8, 1996, nearly one year after Saro-Wiwa, Kpuinen, and seven others were hanged.



The complaint, which was filed by attorneys from the New-York based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and by Washington DC-based law professor Julie Shapiro, points to links between Shell and the military regime which show the degree of influence the corporation had on Nigerian policy. According to Jennie Green, Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights: "



From calling in the military to suppress peaceful demonstrations at Shell sites to bribing witnesses at Saro-Wiwa and Kpuinen's trial, Shell had direct involvement in human rights violations against the Ogoni people."

Aside from its complication in the Saro-Wiwa execution, several other Shell projects have drawn criticism from human rights groups. After visits to the Niger Delta in 1997 and 1999, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) organization found repeated incidents of people being brutalized for attempting to raise grievance with the oil companies (HRW, “The Price of Oil”, 1999).


and let me remind everyone -- because it's being taken out of context -- i did not bring up the corporation thing to demonize them, but to demonstrate that your demonization of black bear -- especially since no one seems to have actually spoken to any of the black bear people about this -- is hypocritical considering where else our money goes.



it's also interesting how much leeway we're willing to give shell as far as demanding proof of their actions, but you'd all hang the black bear people for allowing a shirt to be sold in their bakery without another shred of explanation.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostFeb 24, 2008#50

urban_dilettante wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
It's interesting to note that you have posted 3 times since this:


urban_dilettante wrote:ok, i'm done with this. i will continue to read all the kind comments though. can't wait for the next zinger, CS!


That says a lot about you.


yeah. it speaks volumes. :roll: guess i need a psych evaluation.


Yes, I read all of the material. None of it supports your claim. Odd, that.


my apologies. change "paid" to "made a contract with" (i'm sure no money exchanged hands) and "murdered" to "violently surpressed" and now it does.



from the cnn link:



"Their fieldwork ... highlighted how the conflict makes it difficult for us to operate safely and with integrity, how we sometimes feed conflict by the way we award contracts, gain access to land, and deal with community representatives," it said.



from the standford link:


The families of Ken Saro-Wiwa and John Kpuinen filed suit in the New York District Courts against Royal/Dutch Shell for its role in the detention, trial and subsequent hanging of the two activists. The suit was filed on Friday November 8, 1996, nearly one year after Saro-Wiwa, Kpuinen, and seven others were hanged.



The complaint, which was filed by attorneys from the New-York based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and by Washington DC-based law professor Julie Shapiro, points to links between Shell and the military regime which show the degree of influence the corporation had on Nigerian policy. According to Jennie Green, Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights: "



From calling in the military to suppress peaceful demonstrations at Shell sites to bribing witnesses at Saro-Wiwa and Kpuinen's trial, Shell had direct involvement in human rights violations against the Ogoni people."

Aside from its complication in the Saro-Wiwa execution, several other Shell projects have drawn criticism from human rights groups. After visits to the Niger Delta in 1997 and 1999, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) organization found repeated incidents of people being brutalized for attempting to raise grievance with the oil companies (HRW, “The Price of Oil”, 1999).


and let me remind everyone -- because it's being taken out of context -- i did not bring up the corporation thing to demonize them, but to demonstrate that your demonization of black bear -- especially since no one seems to have actually spoken to any of the black bear people about this -- is hypocritical considering where else our money goes.



it's also interesting how much leeway we're willing to give shell as far as demanding proof of their actions, but you'd all hang the black bear people for allowing a shirt to be sold in their bakery without another shred of explanation.


Ummm....OK. I suppose that all makes sense to you. :roll:
Read more posts (4 remaining)
Share