Hi Tweets,

Don Baccus writes:

>Sea Shepard, in their response, is essentially taking the position that our
>country did against the Sioux in the Dakotas. "Their land, kill the suckers,
>they have no right to their land or culture", in the case of the Sioux.

This hyperbolic and inflammatory simile is no help, either; nor is its gross
inaccuracy. Did Custer use the Media Event to have a 'frank and friendly
exchange' with Sitting Bull? Did Andrew Jackson use the Press Conference to
force the Cherokee on their Journey of Tears? Does Sea Shepherd use rifle
and sword to acccomplish its aims? 'No' to all three? Gee whiz, then, let's
have some perspective here. What is *fact* is stainless steel harpoons and a
known quantity of astonishingly powerful ordnance--hardly traditional
implements used in ancient practice. What is *fact* is that the
International Whaling Commission--hardly comprised of raving Greens,
incidentally, and to which the US is signatory--is not exactly happy about
the Makah's proposed hunt, as reported in The Economist, by the way, not in
any Sea Shepherd bumph.

>In the case of the Makah - a poor tribe I've seen close at hand, as the
HawkWatch
>Cape Flattery raptor monitoring site is on their land - is poor but proud, and
>works hard to maintain their sense of tribal togetherness.
>
>To insult them as Sea Shepard has is indefensible, whether or not one
>agrees with the decision the tribe has made.

I'll bow to your greater knowledge of the Makah, Don, but your imputation of
a racist Sea Shepherd agenda in this is both despicable and inaccurate: they
want to stop the killing of whales by anyone, any group or any nation for
any reason. Since, this has been their clear, unequivocal position for at
least a couple of decades, their predictable opposition to the Makah's
ceremonial whaling is hardly a 'film-at-eleven!' event.

and Michael Kennedy writes:

>but to run around saying the makah are getting
>weapons to shoot "NMFS enforcement officers and other environmentalists" is
>beyond all reason. The insinuation has racial undertones and is
>disrespectful.

Likewise, a severe distortion of the Sea Shepherd release. Read it
carefully. At no point does Sea Shepherd say the Makah *are* doing so, just
that they might. History shows this is a reasonable concern for any game
warden. Guns in the hands of hunters and poachers have frequently been used
to at the very least intimidate and injure game wardens and other law
enforcement personnel, a simple historical fact, beyond debate or opinion.
Given such a historical plenitude of precedence, and not just in your
country either, simple prudence demands an 'a priori' consideration of the
presence of heavy weapons, especially in non-military hands (where
discipline in their usage may be wanting, regardless of the handler's race,
religion, cause, etc.) in any potential outcome. Baccus and Kennedy would
have us forego consideration of this because the folks toting the guns are
an aboriginal people? Other than a reverse racism, I can see no sense in
this position.

There's a trememdous semantic (and journalistic) difference between saying,
quote: "Sea Shepherd believes that the military-grade ordinance *could also
be used to intimidate or threaten*, etc." (emphasis mine) and "The presence
of these weapons is *certainly a concern* for us, etc." (emphasis mine) and
saying, as Michael Kennedy specifically and explicitly--and doubly
inaccurately--asserts: "...but to run around saying the makah *are* getting
weapons *to shoot* "NMFS enforcement officers and other environmentalists"
is beyond all reason." (emphasis mine). He's saying that Sea Shepherd is
actually stating that the Makah will use them for primarily this purpose, a
gross and equally inflammatory distortion of what Sea Shepherd actually
said. Both of the Sea Shepherd's references to this possible usage are
qualified statements of possibilities, not claims of fact, unlike Kennedy's
statement. Mr. Kennedy's further imputation of racism by Sea Shepherd, where
there is not the slightest suggestion of it in the entire news release (or
in any of their literature I've read, I'll add), is, like Don B's, simply a
repulsive smear, and beyond comment.

I read and re-read the Sea Shepherd news release many times and saw nothing
in it that comes close to insult. The closest the release comes to one is
the somewhat overblown statement, "There isn't a trace of 'ceremonial
aboriginal whaling' in this plan -- it's blatant, undeniable whale warfare!"
Purple prose, yes; advocacy and disapproval, yes; insult, certainly not.

The release actually says, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that the
Makah intend to use heavy weaponry not normally seen outside armored warfare
to supplement their stainless steel harpoons in a 'ceremonial hunt'
(quote-marks from someone's previous post); that Sea Shepherd is concerned
that the weapons may in addition to their professed purpose be used to
intimidate regulatory personnel; that the IWC, which is the worldwide
regulatory body is unlikely to grant the Makah nation the permissions
necessary to hold the hunt as apparently there seems to be some doubt that
the Makah hunt meets the necessary criteria; that there is evidence that the
Makah are being assisted (perhaps even being armed) by a Department in the
US Federal government (despite, and possibly counter to, its IWC role); that
at least two countries with commercial whaling industries (and one of them,
Norway, a rogue nation, at that) have offered financial assistance, though
the article doesn't make clear whether that help was accepted; and, finally,
that Sea Shepherd opposes this hunt mainly on the basis that the proposed
Makah whale hunt is only a maneuver in the whaling nations' overall
geopolitical agenda to revive uncontrolled commercial whaling and to
undermine the only thing in their way, the IWC.

That the Sea Shepherd has a point of view counter to the Makah's is clear:
they disapprove of the hunt for a number of reasons but though I looked hard
(with an editor's cold eye, and I will at this point express publicly a
private disapproval of Sea Shepherd that might have led to some prior bias)
for insulting language I found none; the expression of that point of view,
when it arose in the article, was not insulting in either vocabulary or
expression, in my opinion. That Sea Shepherd has for years been opposed to
whaling by anyone, period, is common knowledge; so are many others. Does
their or anyone else's disapproval of the Makah's plans or their methods in
accomplishing their ends constitute disrespect, or racism, or an insult? Oh,
please.

>"Ben Johnson of the Makah tribe has reported that the Japanese and
>Norwegians have offered them funding to support their lobbying attempts,"

And what if Sea Shepherd is *right* about the whaling nations of Japan and
Norway using the First Nations peoples as stalking horses in their years-old
campaign to sabotage the IWC? Is that acceptable? What if they're using the
Makah as pawns, as Mr. Johnson of the Makah claims? Have the Makah no
suspicions of simply being used as catspaws for wider geopolitical reasons?
Are they concerned? (with friends like that, I sure would be). Have times
changed to the point where it is all right for a nation to co-opt when a
hundred years ago it might have simply subjugated or exterminated an
indigenous people?

And what, finally, do we tell the whales? That some of us want to save you
for esthetic and philosophical reasons that make you--as we are--something
more than animal if not actually equal to human, and some of us want to kill
you because our fathers did so from time immemorial and we have an equally
compelling esthetic and philosophy of that patrimony? As usual, we humans
deliver a mixed message: a caress, a bullet. No wonder the animals run in
terror from this schizoid creature shambling about our world. Sometimes,
it's all I can do not to join them.

Michael Price The Sleep of Reason Gives Birth to Monsters
Vancouver BC Canada -Goya
mprice at mindlink.net