- Describe who/what Correa - not everyone will know this.
- Is there a contradiction even in the photos, beyond the written word? Do we know how oil improves life? Is it possible to see any of these contradictions in the photos themselves? (e.g a lack of biodiversity in the left-hand picture or a lack of improvement in life in the right-hand one?
- Can you link the photos to toxicity? In what ways are you saying that this place is toxic? Is it the presence of oil in the place, or perhaps the toxic ways that oil is portrayed? That there is perhaps a toxic narrative that portrays oil as being only beneficial without speaking to the detrimental impact that the oil extraction industry is having on biodiversity?
- Are both sides of the campaign ignoring critical sides of the debate? That biodiversity is being impacted by oil extraction, and that oil extraction is not only improving communities.
- Could you be more clear about what the images are saying about toxicity? This is alluded to in the introduction to the photo essay, but you do not explain it any further here. Also - you mention about the peaceful contact that they made - with whom? What does this mean for oil extraction? Is the toxicity in the relationship that they have been obliged to accept with oil extraction companies? Is the toxicity in their bodies? In the plants and animals?
- Do the Waorani people have any agency in determining the use of the land that they live in? How are they able to muddle the toxic (?) narrative of improved communities alongside biodiversity?
Artifact
Analytic (Question)
Everyone can view this content
On