Subject: Re: Fwd: Makah Use Military Weapons on Gray Whales
Date: Aug 15 07:46:37 1997
From: Don Baccus - dhogaza at pacifier.com
At 04:37 AM 8/15/97 -0700, you wrote:
>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.
Sure, mostly by white southern crackers and western redneck ranchers,
though.
Do you have any evidence that any individual of the Makah tribe has ever
done so, though? Lacking such evidence, is it not simply scare-mongering
to state that they may suddenly start shooting enviros.
Sea Shepherd's not an enviro group, anyway, they're an AR group. They're
really saying the Makah may turn on AR activists, not enviros.
>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
Hmmm, given Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy McVeigh, one might think those
trained by the military are actually pretty damned dangerous...
> 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 no history of personal violence by this tribe against enviros, that
I'm aware of. An outspoken environmentalist is certainly safer there than,
say, in Forks or Hoquiam. Having spent time in all three towns (I'm thinking
of Neah Bay). This isn't "reverse racism". This is reality. The UW Canopy
Crane project ended way south near Portland because of opposition by Forks
and Hoquiam and the surrounds, and fears of vandalism and intimidation by
the good white citizens of these areas.
I don't recall tribal people (there are several tribes in NW Washington)
being discussed as the source of the problem.
Nor is it racist for me to point out that back in the 1970s and early 1980s,
if you left your car at trailheads to the Oly NP beaches near Plush you were
very likely to find it broken into upon your return. (different tribe, not
Makah, BTW).
This is simply stating the facts.
>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."
Well, if they're worried, maybe they should do the logical thing and stay
away from Makah tribal lands, which, after all, do enjoy limited sovereignity
due to treaties with the US government.
Is Sea Shepherd suggesting the Makah be forced to give up these weapons? What
grounds does Sea Shepherd give for presuming that purchases of weapons by the
Makah is any business of theirs?
Is Sea Shepherd worried that an illegal action taken by them might be met by
an illegal application of force? If so, is it not a bit hypocritical to
whine that your opponent *might* do something illegal to counter something
you *intend* to do which is illegal?
Because I have little doubt that Sea Shepherd intends to intervene during
the Makah hunt. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they tresspass on tribal
lands.
> 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.
Then why comment repeatedly?
> "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.
Actually, it is insulting and racist as well. Sea Shepherd is stating that
THEY, not the Makah, can best judge whether or not the Makah's taking of
gray whales whales really is ceremonial aboriginal whaling.
Now, the Makah have made it clear that the ceremonialism lies largely on
shore, in the sharing of the bounty, the traditional feasts and celebrations
which attend them, etc. It isn't the tool used to kill the whale which, in
their eyes, primarily gives the taking of a whale cultural significance. If
it were, of course they'd use traditional tools.
This sounds very much like white folk telling Indian folk which parts of their
culture are legitimate, and which aren't. It's not aboriginal whaling because
Sea Shepherd can better judge authenticity of aboriginal culture when
extrapolated
into the modern world than aboriginal people can themselves.
It may not be racist, but it sure as hell is arrogant and presumptious.
>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
I thought it was .50 cal from the earlier posts, in which case it's often
used outside armored warfare, but that's not terribly relevant.
>to supplement their stainless steel harpoons in a 'ceremonial hunt'
>(quote-marks from someone's previous post);
Presumably if they used old-fashioned harpoons they'd get Sea Shepherd's
blessing because it would truly be an aboriginal hunt, despite the fact
that these tools would frequently cause a slow, lingering, and painful
death? Presumably the problem is with the Makah expressing
their reverence for this historical source of bounty by wishing to make
the creature's death as quick and painless as possible?
In other words, Sea Shepherd would rather see the creatures killed slowly
in the name of authenticity?
This is where they're coming from?
Or are they up to something different?
>that Sea Shepherd is concerned
>that the weapons may in addition to their professed purpose be used to
>intimidate regulatory personnel;
Since the Makah engage in other activities which are regulated, for instance
ocean shipping, perhaps we should seek to learn if they have a history of
using weapons to intimidate regulatory personnel, rather than leap to
conclusions.
On the other hand, if Sea Shepherd attempts to ram the Makah when they're
at sea, the Makah may legally be entitled to use force to fend them off.
> 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);
Yep, the US Federal government is arming the Makah. The real goal is a
Bay-of-Pigs style invasion of BC.
Get over the hyperbole, Mike.
>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;
I would hope not. The Makah began, at least, by trying to steer clear of
international whaling politics.
Whatever, the Makah can't be blamed for Norway's trying to make political
headway out of this situation.
>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.
While whaling nations may attempt to use this as another weapon in order
to achieve that end, does Sea Shepherd present any evidence that the Makah
themselves began plans to resurrect this hunt with this goal in mind?
My experience with the tribe is very, very limited but they seem somewhat
parochial and suspicious of outsiders. Not the typical profile of your
international political conspiricist.
>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)
Well, I disapprove of the Makah's decision myself, but I respect their right
to make that decision, just as I repect their right to lay down the rules
under
which HawkWatch and AdHawk get to conduct the spring migration count. Those
rules are somewhat restrictive, but it's their reservation, their tribe,
their government, and their right to make it this way if they so choose.
And if the treaty under which that reservation was formed and under which
the US Government gained title to other portions of the Olympic Penninsula
gives them the right to resurrect their hunt of gray whales now that they've
been downlisted, well, so be it. They're adults, not wards of the state,
and they have the right to make poor decisions at the tribal, as well as
individual, level.
I have little use for Sea Shepherd, which seems hellbent on pissing so many
people off that the result they seem to fear - the resurgence of unregulated
whaling - seems bound to happen.
They could easily drive the Makah into the arms of Norwegian support, for
instance, when if the cards were played right the Makah would probably check
out of the entire global discussion.
>for insulting language I found none;
Canadians seem to find it insulting that the US seems to think we get to
decide how many of your salmon you get to catch.
Yet you claim it isn't insulting when Sea Shepherd, in essence, says they
are better able than the Makah to decide if the Makah are doing authentic
Makah activities or not.
Interesting...
> 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?
It isn't their disapproval per se which is insulting. It is their rhetoric.
>>"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?
Is that your business? Is that my business? If Sea Shepherd thinks it's
OK for them to intervene, is it not hypocritical for them to complain
that their opponents are intervening?
Are you now claiming that you are better placed to judge tribal interests
than the Makah themselves?
Are you to be the judge of what is acceptable behavior by the Makah tribe?
Look, they enjoy limited sovereignity. Under that system, they're free to
screw up if they wish.
And they're certainly free to ignore you (or me).
> 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?
No, it is not "all right". I have even less use for Norway than I do for
Sea Shepherd when it comes to whaling. But, it is not for you or I to
decide what's best for the Makah.
On the other hand, the Makah benefit to some extent by limited self-rule,
by limited sovereignity that for instance has allowed other tribes to
offer gaming despite opposition by various states, by treaty rights to
resources, etc.
Being exploited by Norway could result from this small tribe's limited
sovereignity.
OK, so there's potential downside along with the potential upside.
The reality is that tha Makah could disband if they wished, give their
assests to the US, etc, by writing a new treaty if they decide that
the downside of the current legal arrangement outweighs the upside.
Thus far they haven't, though. As long as they choose to maintain
their quasi-independent status, you're just going to have to live
with it.
You don't seem to have much respect for treaty rights...
>And what, finally, do we tell the whales?
To run away from Indians, as well as Norwegians and Japanese?
>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.
The day the entire world of humanity looks, talks, thinks, and smells like
BC whitebread is the day I'm putting a bullet in my brain.
>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.
Well, that's one approach...
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net