UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Aff/ Makah Whaling Table of Contents Makah Whaling Affirmative Table of Contents 75 Makah Whaling 1 AC 76 Inherency Extensions 82 Extensions to Harms: Makah Undermines US Credibility 83 Extensions to Harms: Whale Extinction 84 Extensions to Harms: Human Extinction 85 Extensions to Solvency: US Key to Whaling Ban 86 Extensions to Solvency: Doesn’t Violate Treaty 87 Extensions to Solvency: Moral Imperative 88 Answers to: “Ban Not Enforced” 89 Answers to: “Racism” 90 Answers to: “Cultural Destruction” 92 UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/6 Aff/ Makah Whaling 1 AC Makah Whaling 1 AC Contention One: Inherency The Makah, a Washington State Native American Tribe, Has Recently Asserted a Long-Held Treaty Right to Hunt Whales and, With the Assistance of the US Federal Government, Has Already Killed One Whale Murphy ’99 [Sean, American Journal of International Law, July 1999] In 1995, the Makah, a tribe of about 2, 000 American Indians living in the Pacific Northwest, announced plans to hunt California gray whales. The tribe noted the provisions of an 1855 treaty between the U. S. Government and the Makah that “the right of taking fish and of whaling or sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians.” The Makah maintained that the discipline and pride generated by such hunts would be one weapon for fighting the tribe’s high unemployment, widespread drug and alcohol abuse, and violence. The Makah agreed to cooperate with the U. S.
The Essay on The Makah
The Makah are a Native Indian tribe who have recently decided to enact their treaty rights, and start to hunt for whales. These actions have caused an uproar in North America. The Natives state that they are not doing anything but exercising their legal rights. Opponents to their hunting of whales argue that the Makah are a group of uncivilized and inhumane individuals, and that they are harming ...
Government in obtaining International Whaling Commission approval of an annual harvest quota of up to five gray whales for the tribe and in managing the harvest of the gray whales within any quota set by the IWC. On October 23, 1997, the IWC adopted a quota permitting the Makah Tribe to hunt an average of four gray whales per year for five years. The decision was based on a joint request from Russia and the United States for a five-year quota of 620 gray whales, 600 of which were to be allotted to the Russian Chukotka people. The prospect of the Makah whale hunt, however, was fiercely opposed both internationally and in the United States. On May 23, 1998, U. S.
Congressman Jack Metcalf, joined by animal rights groups and coastal boat tour operators, sued the U. S. Government and the Makah tribe for violations of the National Environmental Policy Act. On September 21, 1998, the U. S. District Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction to delay or cancel the Makah’s first hunt and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
When the Tribe then began planning and training for its first hunt, environmental groups physically interfered with its efforts, firing a signal cannon to scare off any whales in the vicinity. Ultimately, however, in May 1999, the Makah successfully hunted their first gray whale. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 2/6 Aff/ Makah Whaling 1 AC Although a Recent Appeals Court Ruling Has Temporarily Halted the Makah’s Hunt, They Are Already Planning Their Next Step With the Support of the Federal Government’s National Marine Fisheries Service Bernton ’02 [Hal Bernton, Seattle Times, 12/21/02] The 9 th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked the resumption of the Makah’s gray-whale hunt, ruling yesterday that treaty rights do not exempt the tribe from the scrutiny of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.
“The intent of Congress cannot be hostage” to the intentions of tribal leaders, the three-judge panel wrote. It said it must be assumed that Congress intended its policies to “transcend the decisions of any subordinate group.” The federal appeals-court ruling is a victory for animal-protection groups that have fought for years in court to stop the Makah from resurrecting the gray-whale hunt off the Olympic Peninsula. One gray was taken in 1999, and the Makah have had the right to take up to five whales a year. The ruling puts the hunt on hold, at least until the National Marine Fisheries Service completes what will probably be a lengthy review. Brian Gorman, a spokesman for the service, said his agency was disappointed with the decision and that it would take a lot of analysis to figure out how to proceed in the next round of whale-hunt reviews, scheduled for next year.
The Essay on A Whale Hunt Young Doctor
... The desire to hunt the whale returns.' (Sullivan 35 - 36) This shows how whaling is central to the culture of the Makah, and is ... danger of being lost than the Gray Whale. The Makah or the whale, or the loss of a whale or the loss of a great ... their culture. The Makahs have been aware of the need to link their people with their heritage for many years. Whale hunting was ...
The ruling also might have broader implications for the application of federal conservation laws to tribes that fish for salmon or rockfish under treaties, according to John Arum, an attorney for the Makah tribe. “It’s a very devastating decision if it stands,” Arum said. “I think this case has implications that go way beyond whaling.” He said the decision runs outside the mainstream of 30 years of Native American law and that the tribe probably will seek a review by an 11-member panel of the 9 th Circuit. The decision also might be appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court.
UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 3/6 Aff/ Makah Whaling 1 AC Contention Two: Harms Even Though the Makah Only Want to Kill a Few Whales Themselves, Support for Their Hunt Hurts the US’s Ability to Prevent Other Countries From Resuming Much More Damaging Commercial Whaling Walker ’99 [Peter Walker, assistant professor of cultural and political ecology and human-environmental relations at the University of Oregon, The Humane Society, June 1999] There is much more at stake than the five whales per year that the Makah have permission to kill. Makah whaling provides a powerful tool for Japanese, Norwegian, Icelandic and Russian whalers who want to expand whaling globally. At the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission in 1999, Japan accused the U. S. government of hypocrisy for endorsing the Makah hunt and even subsidizing it with a $310, 000 grant, while rejecting Japan’s petition to allow “traditional” Japanese whaling. The two are not the same: The Makah have a responsible management plan based on cultural needs, whereas Japan barely disguises its commercial motives.
But these distinctions are lost in the global politics of whaling. The Makah hunt plays perfectly into the hands of the Japanese and other whaling countries who use loopholes such as “scientific research” to continue commercial hunting. The whaling nations believe the Makah case will add “cultural need” to the list of loopholes they can exploit. Every Violation of the Whaling Ban Undermines Its Credibility World-Wide and Pushes Whales One Step Closer to Extinction Lindemann ’98 [Jeffrey, Detroit Journal of international law and Practice, Fall] The solution to the problem is not an easy one. A consensus must be reached amongst the world community to place the preservation of whales at the forefront. Nations must take a stance through their domestic policies to force non-complying nations to discontinue their practices.
The Term Paper on Commercial Law – Agency Contract
Question 1. Outline and describe the ways in which an Agency Contract may be established. Agency According to Nicole Busby, an agency is a contractual relationships that entitles one party to act on behalf, or in favour of, the other party in contractual arrangements with a third party. In this regardthese circumstances, the former is known as an “agent” and the entity on whose behalf the agent ...
Each time that a nation violates the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), damage is done to the entire body of international law. Only by forcing these nations to comply with their obligations will the body of international law become stronger. If not, whales will once again be pushed to the limits of extinction by the whaling nations and may succumb to the economic greed of the few. Even if the Makah Never Kill a Whale, Continued Support For Their Hunting Will Open the Door for a Resumption of Commercial Whaling Butler ’98 [director of Whales Alive, Christian Science Monitor, October 15] Whether the Makah succeed in killing a whale or not – and they ” ve been prowling the Puget Sound and the near-shore waters of the Pacific daily – the simple act of hunting, with the support of the US Government, will compromise US ability to oppose renewed commercial whaling. It will expand the definition of subsistence whaling and throw open the door to commercial whaling by Japan, Norway, Iceland, and other countries with whaling traditions. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 4/6 Aff/ Makah Whaling 1 AC A Resumption of Commercial Whaling Would Quickly Drive Many Species to Extinction Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society ’00 [June 30] Eighteen years after the Moratorium was agreed, there is even greater cause for concern – and doubt – about the ability of whale populations to withstand commercial exploitation than ever before.
The Essay on Environmental Policy and Sustainability
According to the EPA, “environmental justice” refers to that people regardless of their caste, creed, religion, race, place of origin, socio-economic status, etc, should be given fair treatment and equality with regard to the development, execution and enforcement of environmental rules and regulations. Based on environment issues, no group or religion should be given preferences or abused. The ...
Over 140 organisations, including conservation and welfare groups and whale watch operators in Australia, oppose any resumption of commercial whaling. They call on the IWC to maintain the ban on commercial whaling for at least another fifty years while it assesses the combined and long term impacts on whales of environmental threats. Sue Fisher, Campaigns Manager at WDC S, states, ‘it is impossible to claim that we are ready to start commercially hunting whales again. Without many more years of research into the impacts on whales of environmental threats, any exploitation could repeat the tragic mistakes of the past, when species after species was driven to the brink of extinction. There are just too many unknowns.’ Whales Play an Important Role in Keeping the Air Breathable for Humans- Continuing to Kill Them is Like Playing Russian Roulette With the Planet Williams ’88 [Heathcote, “Whale Nation, quoting George Small, “Why Man Needs the Whales”, 1979] Every human being has a biological need that must be constantly met – oxygen.
And 70% of the oxygen added to the atmosphere each year comes from plankton in the sea. Serious damage to the world ocean therefore could endanger the entire atmosphere of the earth. During the last two decades (1950’s and 60’s) man has killed so many of the large whales that four species of whale have been reduced from a total of several million to just a few thousand. Every one of these vanished millions of whales used to consume several hundred tons of a large species of zooplankton a year. That plankton now is undergoing a classic population explosion for want of a predator. What will be the effect on the oxygen-producing smaller plankton of the world ocean? What will be the effect on the colour and reflectivity of the oceans? What will be the effect on the average water temperature of the oceans, on its dissolved oxygen content and subsequently on the earth’s atmosphere? No one knows.
Climatologists know any significant change in ocean temperature can have profound effects on the earth’s climates. By killing off the whales of the world man is playing Russian roulette with the earth’s primary support system. Yes, we desperately need the whales to preserve the air we breathe. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 5/6 Aff/ Makah Whaling 1 AC Plan: The US Federal Government will halt all assistance for the Makah whale hunt and Congress will amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to prohibit any killing of whales in US oceans. All necessary funding and enforcement guaranteed, we reserve the right to clarify intent. Contention Three: Solvency Domestic Enforcement of the Whaling Commission’s Ban Through Congressional Legislation is the Only Way to Save the Whales Lessoff ’96 [Journal of environmental law & Litigation 1996] The United States has taken a position of leadership in efforts to protect the great whales.
The Term Paper on Whaling in Us Compared to Japan
... in the last 50 years over two million whales have been killed? The United States views whaling very differently than Japan does. It is ... called the Makah Indians. They are from the western state of Washington. They are allowed to hunt because the IWC believes that whaling has ...
Accordingly, the U. S. Congress has passed several key pieces of legislation designed to protect marine mammals and ensure compliance with the IWC’s regulations. Because the IWC has no enforcement power, the primary legal provisions which regulate international whaling are contained in U. S. domestic law.
Consequently, the effectiveness of the IWC can be directly linked, in large part, to the United States’ willingness to support the IWC unilaterally through domestic legislation. An Across-the-Board Ban on Whaling Through the Marine Mammal Protection Act Would Solve Without Violating the Government’s Treaty With the Makah Markarian, president of The Fund for Animals, and Rose, marine mammal scientist for The Humane Society ’03 [Seattle Times, February 12] The Marine Mammal Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1972, is a powerful environmental law that prohibits the hunting of whales. The law included a special provision allowing subsistence hunts for Native Alaskans, due to their continuing reliance on marine mammal hunting in sub-Arctic and Arctic villages. Other Native hunts such as the Makah’s, culturally based rather than for subsistence, were given no such provision. The Makah have always maintained that the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay expressly preserves their right to whale, but the treaty did so “in common with all citizens of the United States.” The appeals court ruled, therefore, that the tribe “has no unrestricted right to pursue whaling in face of the MMPA,” but rather that “the MMPA’s application is necessary to effectuate the conservation purpose of the statute” and “is consistent with the language of the Neah Bay Treaty.” In other words, the ruling does not negate treaty rights, but rather upholds the longstanding precedent that treaty rights can be restricted for conservation purposes.
The Term Paper on Why The Makah Indians Hunt Whale
Why the Makah Indians hunt whales:" Whales provide us with the food for our bodies, bones for our tools and implements and spirits for our souls."We haven't hunted the whale for 70 years but have hunted them in our hearts and in our minds."Whales are a central focus of our culture today as they have been from the beginning of time." This has been a tradition of the Makah Indians for more than 2000 ...
UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 6/6 Aff/ Makah Whaling 1 AC Condemning the Killing of Whales is a Moral Imperative Barstow ’01 [Robbins, Director Emeritus, Cetacean Society International, Whales Alive, July 2001] The adoption by the International Whaling Commission, at its July 2001 Annual Meeting in London, of a Revised Management Scheme legitimizing the resumption, however restricted, of commercial whale killing would represent a major step backward in humankind’s ethical development. Rejecting this proposal and maintaining the existing zero quotas on all species, on the other hand, would represent a significant forward step, looking toward an IWC management regime of long-term protection from consumptive, commercial exploitation on a global basis. It would recognize the new moral imperative to achieve the “optimum utilization of cetacean resources” through benign interactions such as regulated whale watching, non-lethal research, and widespread educational, aesthetic, and environmental programs. Peaceful coexistence and mutual enrichment should be the overriding goal for future relations between humans and whales in the global community. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Aff/ Makah Whaling Inherency Extensions Inherency Extensions () The Court of Appeals Did Not Forbid the Makah From Hunting, It Only Said They Needed to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement First Det sky ’02 [Mark, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy] At home, the U. S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on remand from the earlier decision, announced in December that the federal government had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) by not preparing an adequate environmental impact statement (“EIS”), and had violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”).
The court held that despite the existence of the Treaty of Neah Bay, the only tribal treaty that specifically mentions whaling, federal environmental regulations applied to the agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the tribe. The decision essentially states that although Makah whaling may be a viable exception to international and national conservation procedures, and it is within the sovereign right of the Makah nation to pursue its traditional fishing operations, the tribe, by working with federal agencies, is answerable to all applicable environmental statutes. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Aff/ Makah Whaling Harms: Makah Hunt Undermines US Credibility Extensions to Harms: Makah Hunt Undermines US Credibility () Support for the Makah Undermines US Credibility and Opens the Door For Resumption of Whaling on a Global Scale Lindemann ’98 [Jeffrey, Detroit Journal of International Law and Practice, Fall] The even larger question arises as to why the United States chose to petition the IWC on behalf of the Makah Tribe.
The damage that has been done to the United States reputation has been large in the arena of the IWC. No longer can the United States have the leverage and power that they once boasted. Anti-whaling states will have their confidence in the United States political positioning eroded and the pro- whaling states will only use the United States as an example for why they too should be able to whale if the largest anti-whaling nation has secured the rights to whale off its own coast line. Once a staunch supporter of the IWC and its policies, the United States, through it actions with the Makah Tribe, has only diminished its persuasive authority, thereby opening the door for the pro-whaling states to bolster their arguments for the resumption of whaling.
() Support for the Makah Sets a Precedent for Other Countries and Indigenous Peoples to Hunt Whales Markarian, president of The Fund for Animals, and Rose, marine mammal scientist for The Humane Society ’03 [Seattle Times, February 12] Americans decided long ago that hunting whales for commercial, recreational and other non-subsistence purposes is simply unacceptable. Allowing the Makah tribe to hunt even a small number of whales for “cultural” reasons sets a dangerous precedent for allowing other “cultural” whale hunts around the world. Japanese, Norwegian and some Native hunters are just waiting for the chance to reopen commercial whaling under the guise of culture, and the Japanese have already pointed to the Makah hunt as illustrative of American duplicity on this issue. We must oppose all non-subsistence whale hunting, regardless of whether the whale hunters are European, Asian, Native American or any other ethnicity. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Aff/ Makah Whaling Harms: Whale Extinction Extensions to Harms: Whale Extinction () Hundreds of Years of Overfishing Have Left Coastal Ecosystems on the Brink of Collapse- A Resumption of Commercial Whaling Would Lead to Mass Species Extinction Kay ’01 [San Francisco Chronicle 7/26/2001] Overfishing and hunting of marine mammals over past centuries set the stage for the current collapse of coastal ecosystems, say scientists in a major new study based on records dating back 125, 000 years. In one of the first studies to take a historical look at the problem, the researchers found that fishing by aboriginal cultures and European colonialists contributed to the extinction or severe depletion of many marine species.
Among the species cited by the study are whales, manatees, sea cows, monk seals, crocodiles, swordfish, codfish, sharks and rays. () With the Help of Modern Technology, a Resumption of Commercial Whaling Would Lead to Rapid Extinction Lessoff ’96 [Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation 1996] Historically, whaling nations agreed to set harvesting quotas for whales in hopes of protecting each whaling nation’s economic necessity of whales. However, as the whaling industry began to see increased profitability in harvesting whales and more modern technology was developed, these quotas became ineffective in preserving and maintaining the whale stocks and severe decreases occurred in many whale populations. It has been asserted that the “rapid decline of whale populations during this century is dramatic evidence of the power of human technology to affect the environment on a global scale.” More whales were killed in the first forty years of the twentieth century than in the previous four hundred years. This enormous increase in the harvesting of whales was directly related to the rapidly advancing technology which was being implemented in the whaling industry. Technology first developed by Norway, such as steam-powered catcher boats, gun-fired harpoons, compressed air pumps used to keep dead whales from sinking to the ocean floor and modern ships with the ability to process the great mammals on board, all combined to result in a modern whaling industry with unprecedented killing efficiency.
As a result, the whale populations of the world rapidly declined. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Aff/ Makah Whaling Harms: Human Extinction Extensions to Harms: Human Extinction () Whales Are Critical Members of Ocean Ecosystems- Their Death Would Make The Planet Uninhabitable for Human Beings Barstow ’89 [Robbins, Executive Director of the Cetacean Society International, Sonar, November 1989] Whales are at the top of the vast food chain of the sea. Baleen whales consume the largest amount of zooplankton, and the killer whale (Orcinus orca) is the world’s greatest non- human predator. Whales affect the ocean ecosystem in a uniquely global manner, and any exploitation of other marine resources, whether krill or fish, must uniquely take into account cetaceans.
Human life depends upon a proper balance in the amount of oxygen in earth’s atmosphere produced from the plankton that is kept in check most critically by whale consumption. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Aff/ Makah Whaling Solvency: US Key to Whaling Ban Extensions to Solvency: US Key to Whaling Ban () US Action Can Profoundly Influence the IWC, For Better or For Worse Watters and Dugger ’97 [Columbia Journal of Environmental Law] The United States has had a decisive impact on IWC policy. In the early stages of the IWC, pro-whaling interests dominated representation from the United States. For example, during the drafting of the 1946 Convention, the United States succeeded in removing the only enforcement provisions in the Convention.
However, when changing public opinion in regard to whaling shattered the status quo in the early 1970 s, the United States began to encourage the adoption of international conservation measures. The current policy of the United States with respect to the IWC is based on the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act. Ironically, the United States now leads the international community in enforcing IWC regulations. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Aff/ Makah Whaling Solvency: Doesn’t Violate Treaty Extensions to Solvency: Doesn’t Violate Treaty () A Ban on All Whale Hunting Wouldn’t Violate the Makah Treaty Green ’03 [Rowdy, mind prod. com / whale ] The treaty arrangement the Makah have allows them to hunt whales only if Americans in general are allowed to hunt them. A simple bill prohibiting whale killing generally would stop the hunt.
American politicians have the power to end the hunt tomorrow. () The Makah Don’t Meet the Qualifications for the Aboriginal Whaling Exemption Earth Island ’98 [International Marine Mammal Project] Under IWC definitions, aboriginal quotas are supposed to be given to identifiable cultural groups who have (a) an unbroken active whaling effort; (b) a cultural need; (c) a nutritional / subsistence need. The Makah have not whaled for seventy years. Clearly, they do not meet IWC criteria as subsistence whalers. Their culture has certainly survived and arguably is thriving without whaling. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Aff/ Makah Whaling Solvency: Moral Imperative Extensions to Solvency: Moral Imperative () As a Former Whaling Nation, the US Has a Unique Moral Responsibility to Protect Whales Now Schreiber, Professor of law and history at Berkeley, ’00 [Law of the Sea] The entire community of former industrial whaling nations must stand responsible collectively for the devastation of the stocks in the modern era.
To be sure, even with much more primitive ship and hunting technologies, in earlier eras of Western European and North American history, the sail-powered whaling fleets did manage to virtually wipe out sizable local stocks or species. () There is a Moral Consensus Against Killing Whales Barstow ’01 [Robbins, Director Emeritus, Cetacean Society International, Whales Alive, July 2001] Moral standards in human society have evolved and changed over the years. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1945 established on a global basis the wrongness of killing or torturing human beings anywhere on earth. Today, increasing numbers of persons, groups, and nations have come to feel that the killing and torturing of great whales anywhere on earth, for commercial purposes, is so abhorrent a practice that it can no longer be morally justified. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Aff/ Makah Whaling Harms: A/T Ban Not Enforced Answers to Harms: Ban Not Enforced () The IWC Has Greatly Reduced the Damage Done By the Research Exception Beck ’96 [Alma Soongi, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 1996] In spite of the suggestion by conservationists that scientific research whaling by Japan, Russia and others occurs as a guise for commercial whaling, the IWC has already – by establishing more stringent standards for managing scientific research whaling – reduced abuse of the scientific research exception.
For example, in 1987, the Republic of Korea was denied its proposal for a take of eighty Minke whales under the scientific research exception, because the Korean government could not show that its take “would not further deplete the stock.” Japan was also denied its request for an annual research catch of 825 Minke and fifty sperm whales in the Antarctic as part of a twelve-year research program on population dynamics, based on the low priority of such a research study and questions about the methodology requiring such a large number of takes.
UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/2 Aff/ Makah Whaling Solvency: A/T Racism Extensions to Solvency: Answers to Racism () Just Because Whaling is Traditional Doesn’t Mean it Should Be Allowed- Slavery Was Once a Tradition, Too Walker ’99 [Peter Walker, assistant professor of cultural and political ecology and human-environmental relations at the University of Oregon, The Humane Society, June 1999] But traditions and political rights have always had an uneasy relationship, and for good reasons. Europeans had a long tradition of slavery until society declared it unacceptable. The Chinese bound and crippled women’s feet. Some African societies practice female genital mutilation.
These are practices that our society condemns, regardless of their being traditional. Many people believe that whales are such intelligent, social beings that their killing cannot be justified by tradition. The time for whaling, like these other traditions, has passed. Defenders of Makah whaling will reject the comparisons, but they should not dismiss the fact that killing whales is profoundly offensive to many people. Those who take a stand against native whaling are easy targets for charges of racism and neocolonialism. We must respect Makah culture, but we also should not devalue, in the name of cultural correctness, the deeply held views of millions of Americans.
() The Way the Makah Treat the Whales They Hunt Proves They Aren’t Hunting Out of Cultural Need Thompson, an elder of the Makah tribe, 2000 [Earth First! Journal] They say tradition, well the first part of whaling, the tradition is you spend a year of a clean life, spiritually clean, and they didn’t do that. Three of them didn’t pass a drug test. I was at court where one of them had a DUI against him and he was found guilty. But he had the common sense, the good sense of stepping down, not getting back in that canoe. But the three that didn’t pass the drug test stayed in that canoe, so this is certainly not tradition. Right over television you see this boat towing this whale…
and they towed it until they were almost into the bay and they then switched it over to the canoe… That is not tradition. The gun is not tradition. The way they disrespected that baby killed, by jumping on it and dancing on it is horrible. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 2/2 Aff/ Makah Whaling Solvency: A/T Racism Extensions to Solvency: Answers to Racism () Exceptions For ‘Aboriginal’ Whaling Are Tools of Imperialism Which Help Governments Keep Native Peoples Politically Powerless Kal land, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Oslo ’94 [Arne, High North News, September 26] Terms like “aboriginal”, “native” and “indigenous” have been used rhetorically by minority groups themselves in order to muster support for their struggle to gain recognition as distinct peoples with their own cultures and with just rights to self- determination. But this can easily become a double-edged sword because concepts such as ASW [Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling] imply a static view of a people and its culture.
Whaling as well as sealing is allowed only as long as it is conducted by small non-White, oppressed minorities perceived as lacking unifying political institutions, use “simple” technologies, and whose economic exchanges are believed to exist within the confinement of a non-commercial economy. Only “traditional” usage is allowed, and. it tends to be the outsiders who define what is “traditional” (Wenzel 1991).
To allow whaling and sealing under the above conditions gives the anti-whalers a way to control ethnic minorities and keep them in a position of dependency. And this weapon has been used. The Greenlanders have to prove before the IWC judges that they do not sell too much of the whale products on the market, and Greenpeace and other “environmental” organizations have threatened the Greenlanders with sanctions if they choose to cooperate politically with the Icelanders and Norwegians.
Support for Greenland’s whaling is not unconditional but rests on, according to an editorial in Greenpeace Denmark’s “Hval bulletin” (No. 3, 1991), Greenland’s support for the moratorium on commercial whaling. Kaguta Na oko, a Japanese Greenpeace leader, has warned that “if [aboriginal whaling] shows any signs of being commercial, modern whaling, then we have to be really careful” (Ward 1990: 36).
The sealers have experienced the same kind of extortions (Wenzel 1991).
To link whaling and sealing to a non-commercial mode of production and lack of over-arching political organization is to deny these people their obvious right to define their own future. No culture is static, but the policy of anti-whalers is de facto an attempt to “freeze” the situation, to turn an evolving culture into a static museum object.
A concept used by the ethnic minorities in order to protect their rights and thus their culture has proved to be a powerful imperialistic weapon in the hands of people who want to control these very same peoples UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Aff/ Makah Whaling Solvency: A/T Cultural Destruction Extensions to Solvency: Answers to Cultural Destruction () Culture Can Change Over Time- Even Some Makah Elders Believe That Whaling Should No Longer Be Practiced Walker ’99 [Peter Walker, assistant professor of cultural and political ecology and human-environmental relations at the University of Oregon, The Humane Society, June 1999] Moreover, the passionate defense of Makah “tradition” by some non-Makah is naive and even demeaning to the Makah themselves. All cultures change. The Makah have not actively whaled since the turn of the century. Pre-European Makah culture cannot be re-created, nor is that necessarily desirable. The Makah take offense at those who want to make them “museum pieces” to fit a romanticized vision of the Native American.
Recognizing that cultural change is inevitable calls into question the idea of an unbreakable, unchanging cosmological circle between whaling and Makah culture. Some Makah, including many of the tribe’s elders, believe that times have changed and that there are better ways to revitalize Makah culture. () Even Some Makah Elders Agree That Their Culture is Best Served by Protecting Whales, Not Killing Them Oceanic Resource Foundation ’98 [Killing Whales for Heritage, February 15, web > There is discontent within the tribe over this senseless hunt and many members believe the international controversy will adversely affect the tribe. The whale hunts are to be accomplished according to strict tradition. The whalers must undertake a nine-month process of bathing, fasting and prayer, and the hunt must be done from cedar canoes using ceremonial harpoons. The final kill will be accomplished by a.
50 gauge shotgun, suggested to produce a swift and painless death for the whale. Many tribe members are opposed to the planned slaughter and are uncomfortable with the thought of a freshly killed, 25-ton, 45-foot whale being dragged ashore for all to see. Some tribal elders believe that ecotourism is a better option. After more than 70 years of protection the whales no longer fear man and often loll near boats. Elder Jesse Ides has fished along side the migrating whales, has touched their backs, and believes they tell him when a storm is approaching by rearing up out of the water. Elder Ides believes the tribal council is trying to wake the people up to a culture that no longer exists.
The future of the Makah culture lies in protection of the whales, not in their senseless slaughter. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Neg/ Makah Whaling Table of Contents Makah Whaling Negative Table of Contents 93 Harms 1 NC 94 Solvency 1 NC 96 Extensions to Harms 1 NC #1- Ban Not Enforced 99 Extensions to Harms 1 NC #3- Whaling Won’t Mean Extinction 100 Extensions to Solvency 1 NC #1- Ban is Racist 102 Extensions to Solvency 1 NC #2- Cultural Destruction 103 Extensions to Solvency 1 NC #5 – Culture Solves Social Problems 105 UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/2 Neg/ Makah Whaling Harms 1 NC Harms 1 NC 1. The IWC is Not Effectively Preventing Whaling Now Miller 2001 [Robert Miller, American Indian Law Review, 2000/2001] The IWC has not been successful in stopping worldwide whaling notwithstanding the commercial whaling moratorium. Critics charge that the IWC lacks an effective oversight mechanism, has no observers on whaling ships, lacks enforcement powers, and ignores its own scientists. In addition, the ICRW contains two big loopholes which Japan and Norway, for example, have used to continue what looks like commercial whaling.
Furthermore, some whaling countries do not belong to the IWC; Iceland withdrew in 1993 from the ICRW and the IWC because of the commercial whaling moratorium and continues to whale today, and Canada withdrew in 1982 and has allowed some Canadian natives to take whales. 2. Makah Whaling Will Not Open the Door for Japan to Whale Beck ’96 [Alma Soongi, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 1996] Another fear raised by critics of the Makah petition is that allowing the Makah to reinstate whaling on almost purely cultural grounds will make it more difficult for the IWC to continue denying Japan’s requests for small-type coastal whaling (STCW) among its coastal communities. Japan insists that STCW is very similar to aboriginal subsistence whaling, and has repeatedly presented extensive and well-researched evidence of the harsh economic impact the moratorium has had on these small-scale, community-based whaling communities. But even though Japan has tried very hard to draw analogies between the cultural importance of STCW and the cultural importance of aboriginal subsistence whaling, Japan has also conceded, since its first petition in 1988, that STCW is not aboriginal and that STCW crews are not Ainu (Japanese native peoples).
This is an extremely important concession, because it effectively disqualifies Japan from obtaining a STCW take under the aboriginal subsistence exception.
As a result of its inability to argue that STCW is aboriginal, Japan has been attempting – in light of the commercial whaling moratorium – to carve out a separate category between aboriginal subsistence and large-scale (or pelagic) whaling operations, an effort that is unprecedented in IWC history. This effort will continue to be an uphill battle for Japan, and rightly so. Japan’s ability to obtain a STCW take rests on its ability to convince the IWC that such a distinction, creating an entirely new category for regulation, is warranted. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 2/2 Neg/ Makah Whaling Harms 1 NC 3. Japan Only Wants to Hunt Whales That Aren’t Endangered, There is No Threat of Extinction McGuinness ’02 [Sydney Morning Herald, Padraig, May 28] The IWC was set up originally as a result of well-justified fears that major whale species were in danger of extinction as a result of over-fishing. This danger is long past.
While there is reason for caution and the maintenance of bans on fishing for some species, in general there is no longer any good case to be made against whaling to supply those people who wish to eat whale meat. It is true that no-one needs to eat whale meat these days, any more than anyone needs to eat pork – but that is no reason to ban its consumption. It is also true that not a single indigenous person of any country, including the United States or Russia, needs to eat whale meat. Japan acted perfectly logically in insisting that if there were to be a ban on whaling it should apply equally to those who, in the name of some special sacred right of indigenous peoples, had been exempted from the general ban.
Their protein needs can be perfectly adequately supplied in other ways – they simply do not depend for their survival on eating whales. If its claim is to be based on tradition, then Japan has an equally valid claim to hunt and eat whales on a traditional basis. If the survival of a whale species is not threatened – and it is getting harder and harder to argue with a straight face that minke whales, which are very numerous in the Southern Ocean, would have their survival threatened by limited commercial whaling – there is no sense in protecting it. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/3 Neg/ Makah Whaling Solvency 1 NC Solvency 1 NC 1. Forcing the Values of Western Science on Whaling Cultures is Cultural Imperialism Freeman et.
al. ’98 [Inuit, Whaling, and Sustainability] Diverse cultures have diverse ways of experiencing, understanding, and interpreting reality and, in sum, defining it. To suggest, as many appear to, that there is only one reality- the universal truth of scientific knowledge to the particular rationality of western industrialized society- perpetuates a colonial mindset and fosters a form of cultural imperialism that is both objectionable and exceedingly unhelpful in the search for international solutions to important global questions. Reality is always culturally scripted.
2. The Destruction of Whaling Cultures Would Mean the Loss of Important Knowledge About How to Use the Environment Sustainably Which is Key For the Long-Term Survival of Humankind Freeman et. al. ’98 [Inuit, Whaling, and Sustainability] Yet to the extent that such actions that attack Inuit cultural practices and traditions succeed, they contribute to a dangerous “domino effect” that progressively weakens the centuries-old adaptive relationship Inuit have established with the living resources on which they continue to depend. This undermining of a remarkably long-lived ecological relationship, in one of the most demanding environments on the face of the Earth, can only result in a serious loss- for all of humankind- of environmental understanding, sensitivity, and, as a consequence, adaptive fitness.
Any such loss is increasingly understood as constituting a threat to the industrialized world, which may have much to learn from Inuit and other indigenous peoples about the sustainable use of living resources- a sustainable use that, in the final analysis, provides the key to our collective survival on the planet. 3. The Aff’s #3 card on solvency doesn’t say that their plan won’t hurt Makah culture, it only says that it won’t violate their treaty with the federal government. 4. [Write your own argument here comparing this impact about cultural destruction to the Aff’s impact about killing whales. Explain why, even if they are correct about the importance of whales, the judge should vote to protect Makah culture.
] UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 2/3 Neg/ Makah Whaling Solvency 1 NC 5. Restoring Makah Culture is the Key to Combating Poverty, Violence, and Drug Abuse on the Reservation Beck ’96 [Alma Soongi, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 1996] The centrality of whaling in Makah culture takes on added importance today in an environment where the Makah face economic poverty (fifty to seventy percent unemployment year-round and an average yearly household income of $7, 000 per year), as well as the social problems that often accompany it, including drug and alcohol abuse, high rates of school drop-out, and violence (both domestic and non-domestic).
Faced with these dire statistics, the Makah are convinced that their ability to combat social problems is strongly linked to their ability to hold onto their traditional ways. According to Hubert Markishtum, chair of the Makah Tribal Council, whaling would be “a catalyst which would allow us to instill in our young people the traditional values which have held our people together over the centuries.” Social scientist Laurence French would probably agree. In his book The Winds of Injustice: American Indians and the U.
S. Government, French writes: “There is little doubt that the best adjusted American Indians are those who know their heritage and are proud of it.” Clearly, the Makah’s interest in whaling goes beyond an assertion of legal rights. Whaling is also an attempt to reclaim a fundamental piece of cultural heritage, and in doing so, to strengthen the ability of a people to prevail over the effects of economic poverty and cultural alienation. 6. There are plenty of other threats to whales besides hunting that the Aff doesn’t address. [Think about some of the other things that could kill whales, like pollution, and write them here.
] 7. Opposing Whaling Allows the Government to Appear Friendly to the Environment While Continuing Much More Destructive Practices Freeman, former chair of the IWC’s Cultural Anthropology Panel on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling in Alaska and Greenland, ’90 [Milton, Who’s Afraid of Compromise? ] Despite the fact that the IWC is an intergovernmental organisation, meetings provide an opportunity for a government to take an environmental position that will be constructed by its own domestic constituency as “enlightened.” Thus a government with a problematic environmental image at home (and possibly abroad), can appease troublesome animal-welfare advocates at home by speaking out against “cruel and inhumane” treatment of whales; a country engaging in unacceptable toxic waste disposal, or failing to conserve its own wildlife may, in addressing a high-profile international issue, find common cause (and thereby deal better) with political opposition at home. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 3/3 Neg/ Makah Whaling Solvency 1 NC 8. The Ban on Whaling Disrupts Self-Sustaining Whaling Communities and Forces Them to Adopt Much More Environmentally Destructive Lifestyles Freeman, former chair of the IWC’s Cultural Anthropology Panel on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling in Alaska and Greenland, ’90 [Milton, Who’s Afraid of Compromise? ] The Brundtland Commission Report and the State of the World Report (Brown et al 1989) both warn of the environmental costs of sustaining high energy-consuming activities, which, inter alia, include modern agriculture-based food-producing systems. Brundtland also stresses the negative environmental and social impacts caused by displacing economically self-sufficient rural populations, who if displaced ordinarily move into ecologically-unbalanced urban or metropolitan settings. It is these various imbalances that represent the real and serious long-term threats to regional, and ultimately global, environments.
On the other hand it seems evident that a more ecologically-sound approach is one based upon the sustainable harvesting of renewable living resources whose continued productivity remains independent of massive inputs of fossil fuels. Using this self-sustaining regime as the basis of producing quality foodstuffs, as well as maintaining the economic viability and social vitality of the producing and consuming communities, entails none of the damaging environmental consequences associated directly or indirectly with deriving sustenance from land-based, fossil-fuel dependent, agricultural food-production systems, or of displacing self-sufficient rural peoples. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Neg/ Makah Whaling Harms: Ban Not Enforced Extensions to Harms 1 NC #1- Ban Not Enforced () Japan and Norway Can Still Kill Whales Using the Scientific Research Loophole Lindemann ’98 [Jeffrey, Detroit Journal of International Law and Practice, Fall] If a country wishes to study whales and perform scientific research in order to learn more about whale stocks and the preservation of the whales, they may use the scientific research provisions as an exception to the current world wide moratorium, without violating any provisions of the ICRW. In order to conduct their studies, this exception permits the countries to perform lethal research on the whales. After conducting the research on the whales, the states are then allowed to do as they please with the whale meat, so long as any part of the whale is not exported outside of the “researching” state.
It is obvious why the two main pro-whaling states, Norway and Japan, have taken advantage of this loophole. The reasons that these member states give for performing research are numerous and sometimes laughable. Japan is guilty of such actions. In a proposal that the Japanese government implemented for scientific research, the basis was to determine what animal was the natural predator of the squid. In order to do so, the Japanese had to kill a large number of sperm whales to examine their stomach contents. Yet, it has been known for centuries that the sperm whale is one of the largest predators of the squid.
Upon further investigation of the operation by the world community, it was found that on these “scientific whaling research” vessels, there was not an individual who was a “squid” biologist. As stated by Dr. Roger Payne regarding the Japanese scientific expeditions: “Japan claims that it needs to kill these whales for scientific research, to find out how many are left for future hunts. They are really trying to skirt the whaling moratorium… There is nothing scientific about killing 875 whales and selling the meat.
It’s just a scam cloaked, unfortunately, in pseudo science. In the years prior to the moratorium, a Japanese official noted that the research provisions provided a way to continue commercial operations during the length of the moratorium. Such remarks confirm the suspicion that science was secondary to commerce in the proposals.” UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/2 Neg/ Makah Whaling Harms: Whaling Won’t Mean Extinction Extensions to Harms 1 NC #3- Whaling Won’t Mean Extinction () Minke Whales Are Not Endangered- Japanese Whaling Would Not Threaten Extinction Hayashi ’96 [Yoshihiro, Professor, The University of Tokyo, “Whaling for the Twenty-First Century”, 1996) ] The current estimation of the Antarctic minke whale population is 760, 000. This is unexpectedly high compared to the prediction on the population assessment of the Southern Hemisphere minke whales made by scientists before the commercial whaling moratorium (60, 000 by the European/American scientists; 400, 000 by the Japanese scientists).
It is justifiable to say that, under proper scientific management which designates appropriate catch quota, whaling does not endanger the population of minke whales. () The Whales That Japan and Norway Want to Hunt Are Among the Least Endangered Species on the Planet Freeman, former chair of the IWC’s Cultural Anthropology Panel on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling in Alaska and Greenland, ’90 [Milton, Who’s Afraid of Compromise? ] Marine mammals appear to be among the least threatened biological groups when considered in global context (Clark 1989), which is to be expected as the offshore marine environment is far less liable to experience serious habitat alteration than are terrestrial environments, and of course it is habitat loss (and not hunting) that represents the greatest threat to animal species’s survival.
Very few whale species are seriously in danger of extinction at the present time, though many are at lower population levels than in earlier times. Depletion, however, is not in itself necessarily an endangering circumstance, despite misleading statements to the contrary by whale protection advocates. The species of cetacean that are truly endangered are those threatened by loss of critical habitat, such as various river dolphins with very restricted geographical range (Brownell et at 1989).
Large whales on the other hand, often with feeding and breeding populations dispersed over the world’s oceans, are well adapted to their relatively stable and unchanging habitat, and in several instances (e.
g. gray, bowhead, fin and humpback whales) show remarkable resilience in recovering from seriously depleted population levels. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 2/2 Neg/ Makah Whaling Harms: Whaling Won’t Mean Extinction Extensions to 1 NC Harms #3- Whaling Won’t Mean Extinction () A Resumption of Commercial Whaling Wouldn’t Be a Return to Industrial-Scale Whaling Fleets Freeman, Senior Research Scholar at the Canadian Circumpolar Institute, 1995 [High North News] The historic excesses associated with over-exploitation of the great whales occurred during times when whales provided an abundant supply of needed and inexpensive oil for various industrial purposes. Once petroleum-based oils had become widely available and margarine manufacture began using vegetable oils, the main justification for continued large-scale whaling ceased to exist for most whaling nations. Thus by the 1970’s and particularly the 1980’s, whaling continued principally to provide meat in those few societies where it had historically been an important part of the diet. Most other whaling nations, including the U.
S. , the U. K. and the Netherlands, had by then abandoned the increasingly unprofitable whaling and trading in whale products. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Neg/ Makah Whaling Solvency: Ban is Racist Extensions to Solvency 1 NC #1- Ban is Racist () It is Insulting and Racist For Outsiders to Decide for the Makah What Their Culture Means Sch abner ’02 [ABC News, May 29] Opponents of the hunt say the Makah should not be allowed to kill whales because, unlike some tribes in Alaska and northern Canada and the indigenous people of parts of Russia, they do not need whale meat to survive. They characterize the Makah hunt as sport or recreation, and discount the tribe’s claim that whaling is culturally important to them.
“That’s incredibly insulting and racist,” said Janine Bowe chop, the director of the Makah museum. “For them to determine what it means to us brings us back to the last century when it was thought that Indians could not speak for themselves and determine what things mean to us. I would not pretend to determine what something means to another culture.” She said that despite the 70 years when the tribe did not have a whale hunt, it is still “a regular and important part of our lives.”There are lots of strengthening values associated with whaling,” she said. “There are lots of spiritual values that feed sharing and cooperation among our community. And it connects us with the ocean in ways that Makah have always been connected with the ocean.” () Denying the Makah’s Right to Whale Violates the Government’s Treaty Obligations Miller 2001 [Robert Miller, American Indian Law Review, 2000/2001] The Makah whaling rituals and customs are the essential elements of a distinctive and respected culture. The Tribe’s rationale for renewing whaling was that “the whale hunt will not only bring the community together, but it enriches our culture.” The federal government itself recognizes that the Makah’s “subsistence hunting includes far more than physical survival.
It is a way of life that includes historical practices and is the cultural ‘glue’ that holds the Tribe together.” Thus, American Indian tribes and other distinct cultures should have the right of cultural self-determination to keep their unique cultures, “ways of life” and traditional practices viable and active unless they cause unreasonable harm to majority societal interests. In addition, in the case of American Indian tribes and Indian people it is the duty of the United States under its official policy of self-determination and its trust responsibility to support tribal cultural practices. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/2 Neg/ Makah Whaling Solvency: Cultural Destruction Extensions to Solvency 1 NC #2- Cultural Destruction () Eliminating Native Whaling Practices Destroys a Wealth of Knowledge About How to Live in Tune With the Environment That Could Help Humanity Address Its Most Pressing Problems Freeman et. al.
’98 [Inuit, Whaling, and Sustainability] The various actions being taken to oppose sustainable whaling, if continued or successful, not only threaten Inuit and other whaling peoples’s social security- by diminishing or destroying these societies’ cultural capital, they also represent a potential loss for all humankind. People around the world are increasingly aware that indigenous and local communities that maintain their traditional relationships with their environment through the sustainable use of local resources have much to teach those who have lost those living connections to the natural world. Indeed, the loss of a specialized cultural adaptation from the progressively reduced inventory of sustainable food-producing activities cannot be considered to be in the best long-term adaptive interests of the global community. The future problems of providing food for an expanding human population, and of ensuring social justice and environmental quality under conditions of growing uncertainty and demand, are among the greatest challenges that face international resource management agencies today- and in the future as well. () Failure to Allow the Makah to Whale Threatens to Exterminate Them as a People and a Culture Beck ’96 [Alma Soongi, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 1996] On an intellectual level, denial of the Makah’s petition could compromise the Makah’s aboriginal, treaty and cultural rights; on a human level, denial could deprive them of a truly viable means of cultural survival, which is especially important as the Makah and other American Indians face increased economic poverty and cultural alienation. If the threat to global whale conservation is not real, the IWC should do everything in its power to approve the Makah’s petition, even on purely cultural grounds.
As experience has shown, cultural survival is essential to survival as a people. () Whaling is Central to Makah Culture and Tradition Beck ’96 [Alma Soongi, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 1996] The importance of whaling in Makah tradition is clear: the Makah were the only tribe in the region, both in the United States and Canada, who explicitly included the right to whale in their nineteenth century treaties with the United States and Canadian governments. Furthermore, the Makah were not only eighty percent dependent on whaling for subsistence, before they ceased the practice seventy years ago, but were also famous throughout the region for their whale-hunting expertise and prowess. Preparations for a whale hunt required months of physical conditioning and spiritual preparation, the whale hunt was integrally connected to Makah religious, ceremonial, and social life. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 2/2 Neg/ Makah Whaling Solvency: Cultural Destruction Extensions to Solvency 1 NC #2 () Whaling Has Been Central to Makah Culture for Thousands of Years Miller 2001 [Robert Miller, American Indian Law Review, 2000/2001] The importance of whaling to the Makah culture, religion, economy, and way of life cannot be overstated. In 1865, a federal agent compared the importance of whales to the Makah as the buffalo was to the plains tribes.
Whaling was the preeminent Makah activity and becoming a successful whaler was the highest social status and prestige a Makah could attain. Whales and whaling also played the major role in the culture and religious beliefs of the Tribe. Non-Indian authorities accept that the Makah have whaled for over 1500 years, but there is evidence that California gray whales have been hunted by natives in the Pacific Northwest for over nine thousand years. () Whaling is an Essential Part of What it Means to Be Makah Watters and Dugger ’97 [Columbia Journal of Environmental Law] Whaling was a central part of the Makah culture, transcending modern economic notions of natural resource consumption. The primacy of this legacy in their heritage and the impact of its temporary demise due to the practices of more recent settlers is difficult to overstate. Whaling fulfilled social, economic and spiritual functions in a manner similar to the role of salmon in other Pacific Northwest tribes.
Whaling provided not merely food, clothing and shelter – it formed an integral part of the world view, heritage, and identity of the Makah. UDL 2003-2004 Core Files 1/1 Neg/ Makah Whaling Solvency: Culture Solves Social Problems Extensions to Solvency 1 NC #5- Culture Solves Social Problems () Whaling Will Alleviate Famine and Disease Among the Makah Miller 2001 [Robert Miller, American Indian Law Review, 2000/2001] Similarly, the Makah have a nutritional need for whales and can benefit greatly from increasing this food source in their diet. As with many Native Americans, the Makah suffer from various nutritional problems and systemic illnesses that experts attribute to the introduction of western foods. Furthermore, the Makah and other American Indians are suffering with an epidemic of diabetes that is also partly attributable to western foods replacing traditional diets.
Perhaps a return to their historical diet would help improve the health of the Makah Tribe. A perverse variation on the nutrition issue was actually used as an argument against the Makah resuming whaling. Since the Tribe had not whaled in over seventy years, commentators stated that the Makah had no nutritional reason to resume whaling because obviously they had been eating other foods for the past seventy years. This argument is disingenuous and also ignores the potential health benefits from the Makah returning to a more traditional diet. Furthermore, the reason the Makah have not been eating whale for the past seventy years is because American and European commercial whalers devastated their traditional food source.
To prevent the Makah from resuming their cultural traditions and benefitting from whales as a valuable and nutritious health source due to the profligate actions of other societies would be cultural genocide of the worst form.
