Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Links
GOP hates respecting tribal rights
Ryan, 12 executive director for the Defending Wisconsin PAC (Jeremy,
**Humpback CP**
CP
1NC
Text: The United States federal government should fulfill
its 1885 Treaty of Neah Bay obligations to the Makah
Indian Tribe in the area of cultural humpback whaling.
Makahs prefer to hunt humpback whales- speed and
migration
Renker, 12 - Ann M. Renker received her Ph.D. in anthropology from The
American University in Washington, D.C. in 1987, A resident of the
reservation since 1986, she has also been an expert witness for the Tribe
since 1994 (Whale Hunting and the Makah Tribe: A Needs Statement,
International Whaling Commission, May,
http://iwc.int/private/downloads/ds5fzaq2p14w88ocko00o4gcw/64-ASW
%204.pdf)//jk
Archaeological and ethnohistorical data demonstrate that Makahs hunted several species
of whales that traveled through their territory, including the gray (Eschrichtius robustus),
humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), finback (Balaenoptera physalus), and right (Eubalaena
glacialis) whales. Huelsbeck (1988a:5, 1994:171) discusses the traits which make both gray whales
and humpbacks attractive prey. In addition to swimming slowly and
near the shore, both types of whales could appear during multiple
seasons, including the summer. Humpbacks have also been known to
migrate along the coast, but not to the extent that gray whales do. Non-Indian whale hunters
characterize the gray as the more aggressive species of the two during a hunt (Hagelund 1987).
According to the report, "recent studies have shown that changing climate conditions in the Bering Sea
and nearby areas have reduced prey populations for gray whales." The report further indicates that the
estimate of "typical gray whale abundance suggests that recent problems in gray whale feeding-including
reports of thin adults or high calf mortality-may result from changing conditions in northern feeding
(P. J. Sanjeeva Raj, former Head of Zoology Department, Madras Christian College, Beware the
Loss of Biodiversity, The Hindu, September 23, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/openpage/beware-the-loss-of-biodiversity/article3927062.ece)
He regrets that if such indiscriminate annihilation of all biodiversity from the face of the earth happens for anthropogenic
reasons, as has been seen now, it is sure to force humanity into an emotional shock and trauma of loneliness and
helplessness on this planet. He believes that the current wave of biodiversity loss is sure to lead us into an age that may
Biodiversity Decade with the chief objective of enabling humans to live peaceably or harmoniously with nature and its
biodiversity. We should be happy that during October 1-19, 2012, XI Conference of Parties (CoP-11), a global mega event
on biodiversity, is taking place in Hyderabad, when delegates from 193 party countries are expected to meet. They will
review the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was originally introduced at the Earth Summit or the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Ministry of Environment and
Forests (MoEF) is the nodal agency for CoP-11. Today, India is one of the 17 mega-diverse (richest biodiversity) countries.
Backlines - BioD !
Marine ecosystems key to survival
Sielen 13
ALAN B. SIELEN is Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine
Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, The Devolution of
the Seas, Foreign Affairs, November/December,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140164/alan-b-sielen/the-devolution-of-the-seas
Of all the threats looming over the planet today, one of the most
alarming is the seemingly inexorable descent of the worlds oceans
into ecological perdition. Over the last several decades, human activities have
so altered the basic chemistry of the seas that they are now
experiencing evolution in reverse : a return to the barren primeval
waters of hundreds of millions of years ago. A visitor to the oceans at the dawn of
time would have found an underwater world that was mostly lifeless. Eventually, around 3.5 billion years
ago, basic organisms began to emerge from the primordial ooze. This microbial soup of algae and bacteria
needed little oxygen to survive. Worms, jellyfish, and toxic fireweed ruled the deep. In time, these simple
organisms began to evolve into higher life forms, resulting in the wondrously rich diversity of fish, corals,
destruction of habitats, and climate change are emptying the oceans and enabling the lowest forms of life
Spills Over
Makah gray whale hunting justifies Japanese and Icelandic
whaling- kills thousands of whales
Good, 2000 studied Astrophysics at Whitman (Ross, Whitman, Whaling
Ban, http://www.whitman.edu/academics/courses-of-study/rhetoricstudies/resources/public-speaking-example-outlines-videospowerpoints/whaling-ban) // jk
Rep. Jack Metcalf NEEDS DATE stated "The Makahs have already done the
damage we feared. This will now open the door for more quota
increases. Japan has already stated the desire to allow four villages
on the Taiji Peninsula to be granted a quota. Iceland has announced
that it plans to resume commercial whaling. Thousands of whales
may be killed because of this claim of "cultural necessity."'
Ban, http://www.whitman.edu/academics/courses-of-study/rhetoricstudies/resources/public-speaking-example-outlines-videospowerpoints/whaling-ban) // jk
"Japan seeks permission to kill 50 whales in a "traditional" hunt as
an "short-term relief allocation" to help the economies of it's northern fishing
towns, while Russia requesting that Siberian whalers from the
Chukotska peninsula be allowed to kill five highly endangered
bowhead whales, as well as their existing quota of 140 grey whales
annually, of which they only managed to find and kill 85 last year. Thirteen
tribal bands on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, just across
the Straight of San Juan de Fuca from the Makah, likewise declared their
interest in whaling, and were expected to apply for quotas next year.
These requests are fueled by the Makah promoting their success in
it's whale hunt. The fact that the Makahs have been granted
whaling rights makes any nation or tribe eligible for their own
whaling rights . The Makahs' whaling rights must be torn from their
blood soaked hands.
**Topicality**
T Its
Interpretation- Its refers to the United States Federal
Government and is possessive
Updegrave 91 (W.C., Explanation of ZIP Code Address Purpose, 8-19,
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/zipcode/updegrav.htm)
More specifically, looking at the map on page 11 of the National ZIP Code Directory, e.g. at a local post
office, one will see that the first digit of a ZIP Code defines an area that includes more than one State. The
first sentence of the explanatory paragraph begins: "A ZIP Code is a numerical code that identifies areas
Note the
singular possessive pronoun "its", not "their", therefore carrying
within the United States and its territories for purposes of ..." [cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c)].
Violation- the plan is carried out by the Makah TribeTribal nations are sovereign governments
d'Errico, 2000 - Peter dErrico is a consulting attorney on indigenous
peoples legal issues. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1968, was a staff
attorney in the Shiprock office of Dinebeiina Nahiilna Be Agaditahe Navajo
Legal Services, 1968 1970, and taught Legal Studies at the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, 1970 2002. (Peter, The Encyclopedia of Minorities
in American Politics, Sovereignty,
http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/sovereignty.html)//jk
The concept of sovereignty, however convoluted and contradictory, remains an
important part of federal Indian law. Tribal councils established
under the Indian Reorganization Act are regarded as vehicles of
"tribal sovereignty"; they act as governments and not just as corporations,
though they are often limited by federal funding and authority. Indian hunting and fishing
rights have been protected against state and local regulation, though an ultimate authority
has been reserved outside the realm of tribal sovereignty. Indian nations are regarded as immune from suit
without their consent, under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," yet their power over non-members of
the particular nation is sometimes severely limited.
Voting issuea) Limits neg interp key aff functionally doubles topic
size by introducing hundreds of new potential actors
hurts neg research burden and critical thinking.
Notes
Cultural relativism
NEG
1NC
The Makah tribe uses whaling as a means of cultural tradition.
This exhibits a type of cultural relativism.
Sciullo, 2008
(Nick J. Sciullo, Ph.D. Student, Assistant Debate Coach, and Graduate Teaching
Assistant, Department of Communication at Georgia State University, President & CEO
at Nick J. Sciullo Consulting, LLC, State Director at GoRail, former assistant Debate
Coach in the Department of Political Science at United States Naval Academy, former
Research Assistant at West Virginia University College of Law, A WHALE OF A TALE:
POST-COLINIALISM, CRITICAL THEORY, AND DECONSTRUCTION: REVISTING
THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING
THROUGH A SOCIO-LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, 2008, PDF, Accessed: 7/11/14, RH)
Indigenous people of, what is now, the United States are diverse and distinct
from White people White culture.32 They existed free from the influences of
Christianity, Europe, and the powerful oppression of manifest destiny. Indigenous
peoples had thriving economies that rivaled the efficiency and success of more storied
European economies.33 They advanced powerful ideas of philosophy, science,
agriculture, and religion.34 Indigenous people are not alike, nor are all
members of a particular culture, tribe, clan, or other group alike. Their
diversity is one of the most interesting aspects of indigenous studies.
Steven L. Newcomb argues that we as Indigenous peoples must be extremely cautious
and discriminating when it comes to conceptualizing ourselves in terms of the nonIndian societys dominating categories, concepts, and metaphors, and other cognitive
operations.35 While clearly arguing for resistance by native peoples, Newcombs call for
caution may be applied to all. Our historical understanding should be characterized by
the active inclusion of competing views, especially those of native peoples who have been
particularly and carefully removed or otherized in discussions about their history and
the importance of that history in shaping current cultural practices.
Whaling has been an historical reality for many groups over the years.36
Much of the whaling debate in the United States focuses on the
cultural/historical significance of whaling to the Makah , but this discussion is
shrouded in disdain, if not absolute disgust for whaling.37 For the Makah, whaling
is a culturally significant practice, and not simply an exploitation of
resources .38 The Makah have whaled, beginning roughly 4,000 years ago,
and continuously for 1,500 years up to the present.39 They are an ocean people,40
having long depended on the ocean to maintain their society.41 Whaling has
provided valuable resources beyond supplying food,42 including providing
heat,43 tradable goods,44 spiritual significance ,45 and other necessities. The
Makah is the only tribe in the United States with an explicit treaty right to hunt
whales.46
Whaling is not a practice unique to the Makah. Briefly, New Zealand has a long
history of whaling.47 Japan also has a long history of whaling that dates back to its
earliest coastal communities.48 The Basque people whaled in the 13th century.49 To
understand the cultural significance of whaling, one must understand that whaling is an
historical practice that dates back thousands of years,50 and is not a new invention,
trend, or exploitive behavior. Without a historical understanding of whaling, the scholar
is unable to appreciate the nuances of the arguments for cultural whaling. Failing to
(James Rachel, graduated from Mercer University, received Ph.D. from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he taught at the University of Richmond, New York
University, University of Miami, Duke University, and the University of Alabama at
Birmingham, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, 1999,
http://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/rachels--cultural%20relativism.htm, Accessed: 7/11/14,
RH)
In the passage quoted above, William Graham Sumner summarizes the essence of
Cultural Relativism. He says that there is no measure of right and wrong other than the
standards of one's society: "The notion of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of
them, of independent origin, and brought to test them. In the folkways, whatever is, is
right."
Suppose we took this seriously. What would be some of the consequences?
1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally
inferior to our own. This, of course, is one of the main points stressed by
Cultural Relativism. We would have to stop condemning other societies
merely because they are "different :' So long as we concentrate on certain
examples, such as the funerary practices of the Greeks and Callatians, this may seem to
be a sophisticated, enlightened attitude.
However, we would also be stopped from criticizing other, less benign
practices. Suppose a society waged war on its neighbors for the purpose of
taking slaves. Or suppose a society was violently anti-Semitic and its leaders
set out to destroy the Jews. Cultural Relativism would preclude us from
saying that either of these practices was wrong . We would not even be able
to say that a society tolerant of Jews is better than the anti- Semitic society,
for that would imply some sort of transcultural standard of comparison. The
failure to condemn these practices does not seem enlightened; on the contrary, slavery
and anti-Semitism seem wrong wherever they occur. Nevertheless, if we took Cultural
Relativism seriously, we would have to regard these social practices as also immune from
criticism.
2. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of
our society. Cultural Relativism suggests a simple test for determining what is
right and what is wrong: All one need do is ask whether the action is in
accordance with the code of one's society. Suppose in 1975, a resident of South
Africa was wondering whether his country's policy of apartheida rigidly
racist systemwas morally correct. All he has to do is ask whether this
policy conformed to his society's moral code. If it did, there would have been
nothing to worry about, at least from a moral point of view.
This implication of Cultural Relativism is disturbing because few of us
think that our society's code is perfect; we can think of ways it might be
improved . Yet Cultural Relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing
the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own. After
all, if right and wrong are relative to culture, this must be true for our own culture just as
much as for other cultures.
(Hugh Mercer Curtler, author of five books, holds degrees from St. Johns College and
Northwestern University, he is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Honors
Program at Southwest State University in Minnesota, The Myopia of the Cultural
Relativist, 2002, PDF, Accessed: 7/11/14, RH)
The alternative to cultural relativism is not absolutism, as many have
maintained. To say that values are not mere opinions is not to say that they are
unchanging, eternal standards that are known only to a handful of extraordinary
individuals. The alterna- tive, rather, is objectivism, the view that values are
objective in the sense that they do not depend upon those who make value
judgments in any way, though our grasp of these values is always partial and
tenuous. I have examined this view in some detail in another place,2 but it might be
appropriate to give a brief overview of the position here.
Values are qualities or features of our inter-subjective world that require
ap- proval. To reduce values to approval, as the relativist would, is to ignore
the fact that the approval is brought about by virtue of a distinctive quality
of features in our com- mon world that contributes to our worlds richness
and variety. As John Mullen has said in this regard, We can observe Mother
Teresas goodness [for example] with our own eyes. As we observe her caring
actions, we are observing her goodness. Observa- tion plays a crucial role in
value claims. It makes perfectly good sense to say, in the presence of her
ministering to the poor, Look at what a good person she is, you can see it with
your own eyes.3 What Mullen is talking about, of course, is the intuitive
aspect of Pascals two-minded approach to reasoning. Intuition, for
Pascal, is com- bined with discursive thought (esprit geometrique) to allow us
to reason about complex moral issues. We see Mother Teresas goodness,
but we are also able to reason to it from basic ethical principles, or values, and
the facts we collect when we observe her behavior in the presence of those who suffer.
Pascal, the mathematician and devout Christian, saw more clearly than most how the heart and mind
must work together in our search for truth.
The quality of a given event is valuable, not the approval that is attendant
upon it. If, for example, honesty is valuable in the sense that it requires a
positive response (i.e., we approve of honest actions and judge them to be good),
then honesty, like Mother Teresas goodness, is a charac- teristic feature of
our world that all ought to recognize and espousewhether or not they do
so in fact. Honesty, like any other value, is systemically related to other features of our world such that attention to those other features frequently
opens us to the requiredness of the value itself. We see a man give the
dropped wallet back to its owner and those events lead us to acknowl- edge
the value of honesty, which we admire and approve . Honesty has a gestalt
quality that requires recognition by those able and willing to open themselves to itnot
in the way that the I.R.S. requires our check every year, but in the sense of logical necessity.4
Honesty may not always be called for in a given situation (absolutism), but it is always a
good thing. And most impor- tantly, if it is the right thing to do in this situationto
return the walletthen it is the right thing to do in any similar situa- tion. In a marginal
case in which one might lie to spare anothers feelings, or obviously, to save the life of a
friend, honesty may not be called for. In fact, it might be wrong to tell the truth. The
situation will reveal to us the relationship of one value (honesty in this case) to others
(care for others, for example), and experience and thought will direct us to the
conclusion as to which value ought to be adhered to in a particular case. But whatever we
decide to do in a specific case, honesty continues to be a value: it is a good thing to be
honest. In a particular case, however, it might be better not to be
honest, because honesty is in conflict with, say, concern for the life of another human
being.
The hint of situational relativism in this example is not pernicious, because the situation does not determine the value; it merely makes it possible for us to become aware of
the value and its relation to other values in the same situation. Values themselves are not
situational, despite the fact that our awareness of them happens to be. Atten- tion must
be turned to the values in the situation that confronts us, and not to the situation in
isolation, or our personal reac- tion to the situation. This is a difficult thing to ask in an
age in which consciousness is inverted and we are preoccupied with our own reactions to
the world rather than to the world itself. But it is necessary if we are to make sense of our
moral life.
Objectivism in ethics entails the claim that values are features of our
common world and that the reasons we give in de- fending our value
judgments draw atten- tion to those values either directly or by way of other
features of our world that are related systemically to those values. Our
reasons also try to show the relationship among values. For instance, in our previ- ous
example, our reasons try to show that honesty is entailed by the thin moral
principle of respect for personsin that we would not lie to or deceive
persons who are deserving of respect, and keeping the wallet ourselves is a
form of deception. Our rea- sons also try to draw attention to features of the event
itselfthe spontaneity of the action, the implications of the finders keep- ing the wallet
himself, etc. Reasoning in this manner leads us to the conclusion that the
right thing to do in this case is to return the wallet. In this way, our ethical
judgments can be argued, defended, and if need be rejected on rational
grounds that are bind- ing across cultural boundaries.
Ethical judgments cannot always be sim- ply a matter of one persons opinion at a
particular momentthough they may be much of the time, for those who do not think
much about right and wrong. As long as attention is focused on the values
present in the situation itself (and not our personal reaction to that situation) we
can discuss the question of the truth or falsity of the value judgment in a
meaningful way. Cul- tural relativism does not allow for this kind of give and
take, because the view reduces values to our reactions to situations, sim- ply.
That is, cultural relativism reduces values to the opinions and feelings of
par- ticular people at a particular time and place . But this sort of reduction
is simplistic in the extreme . This is why cultural relativism is truly an
absurd view: it reduces situations to a particular persons take on that
situ- ation. If one adopts this position, then there is really no point in
discussing differences of opinion about what is and what is not valuable:
there is no moral high ground .
Admittedly, though, there are elements of absolutism in the objectivist view. Honesty,
for example, is always a good thing even when it must be avoided in the presence of a
greater goodas when we lie to save a friends life. Thus, while objectiv- ism smacks at
times of absolutism, which is unpalatable to the postmodernist temper, it admits that
our grasp of values is never absolute. We can never be certain that we are right
when we make value judgments. In this way objectivism avoids the pitfall of
absolutism and the specter of imperialism that so bothered Michael Walzer.
In short, the view suggested here does not lead to dogmatism . It rests on the
knowl- edge that our claims in ethics are corrigible. But it insists that, in
principle at least, there are correct and incorrect value judgments, and it
invites those who differ to engage in dialogue. This
invitation cannot be ex-tended by the cultural relativist , of
course, since if values are relative to cultures, then there is really nothing to
talk about . One simply notes that the Taliban, for example, deny women their basic
human rights, at least as we see them, and one leaves it at that. Or one reads that young
Palestinian men and women drape themselves in explosives, walk into a crowded
restaurant, and blow up themselves and a dozen men, women, and children. And then
one hesitates to be judgmental! It is ironic in this regard that those who
embrace cultural relativism seek to avoid a position they regard as intolerant only to fall into a position that closes the door to open dialogue and the
reasonable resolution of moral differences.
Our values and the reasons we have for espousing those values are not
necessarily relative to our culture, to our place and time . Values can be
discussed, compared,
rejected, or displaced, as can our reasons for holding them. They are objective or real,
and while our grasp of them is tenta- tive and is most assuredly affected by
cul- tural considerations, it is not determined by those considerations.
Values are not cul- turally relative . Such a view is myopic and ignores what is most
interesting, what is most important, and what is most valuable about the diversity of
cultures.
Link
2NC
1-The 1ac believes we should allow the Makah tribe to whale
because its a cultural tradition. This tradition dates back to
4,000 years ago-thats Sciullo. However, we believe this allows
for other cultural traditions to be socially acceptable which is
problematic because it justifies unethical actions because one
culture accepts it.
2-They use the whale hunting as a means of rituals and cultural
tradition-thats a link
Makah.com, no date
(Makah.com, website for the Makah tribe, The Makah Whaling Tradition,
http://makah.com/makah-tribal-info/whaling, Accessed: 7/10/14, RH)
The Makah Whaling Tradition
Makah Whaling A Gift from the Sea
Whaling and whales are central to Makah culture. The event of a whale
hunt requires rituals and ceremonies which are deeply spiritual . Makah
whaling the subject and inspiration of Tribal songs, dances, designs, and
basketry. For the Makah Tribe, whale hunting provides a purpose and a
discipline which benefits their entire community . It is so important to the
Makah, that in 1855 when the Makah ceded thousands of acres of land to the government
of the United States, they explicitly reserved their right to whale within the Treaty of
Neah Bay.
Makah whaling tradition provides oil, meat, bone, sinew and gut for storage
containers: useful products, though gained at a high cost in time and goods.
Alternative
2NC
The alternative is to reject cultural relativism and embrace
objectivism. Objectivism does not rely on cultural norms rather
it relies on objective morals that do not force us to depend on
those who make cultural judgments
Curtler, 2002
(Hugh Mercer Curtler, author of five books, holds degrees from St. Johns College and
Northwestern University, he is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Honors
Program at Southwest State University in Minnesota, The Myopia of the Cultural
Relativist, 2002, PDF, Accessed: 7/11/14, RH)
The alterna- tive, rather, is objectivism, the view that values are objective in
the sense that they do not depend upon those who make value judgments in
any way, though our grasp of these values is always partial and tenuous. I
have examined this view in some detail in another place,2 but it might be appropriate to
give a brief overview of the position here.
Values are qualities or features of our inter-subjective world that require
ap- proval. To reduce values to approval, as the relativist would, is to ignore
the fact that the approval is brought about by virtue of a distinctive quality
of features in our com- mon world that contributes to our worlds richness
and variety. As John Mullen has said in this regard, We can observe Mother
Teresas goodness [for example] with our own eyes. As we observe her caring
actions, we are observing her goodness. Observa- tion plays a crucial role in
value claims. It makes perfectly good sense to say, in the presence of her
ministering to the poor, Look at what a good person she is, you can see it with
your own eyes.3 What Mullen is talking about, of course, is the intuitive
aspect of Pascals two-minded approach to reasoning. Intuition, for
Pascal, is com- bined with discursive thought (esprit geometrique) to allow us
to reason about complex moral issues. We see Mother Teresas goodness,
but we are also able to reason to it from basic ethical principles, or values, and
the facts we collect when we observe her behavior in the presence of those who suffer.
Pascal, the mathematician and devout Christian, saw more clearly than most how the heart and mind
must work together in our search for truth.
The quality of a given event is valuable, not the approval that is attendant
upon it. If, for example, honesty is valuable in the sense that it requires a
positive response (i.e., we approve of honest actions and judge them to be good),
then honesty, like Mother Teresas goodness, is a charac- teristic feature of
our world that all ought to recognize and espousewhether or not they do
so in fact. Honesty, like any other value, is systemically related to other features of our world such that attention to those other features frequently
opens us to the requiredness of the value itself. We see a man give the
dropped wallet back to its owner and those events lead us to acknowl- edge
the value of honesty, which we admire and approve . Honesty has a gestalt
quality that requires recognition by those able and willing to open themselves to itnot
in the way that the I.R.S. requires our check every year, but in the sense of logical necessity.4
Honesty may not always be called for in a given situation (absolutism), but it is always a
good thing. And most impor- tantly, if it is the right thing to do in this situationto
return the walletthen it is the right thing to do in any similar situa- tion. In a marginal
case in which one might lie to spare anothers feelings, or obviously, to save the life of a
friend, honesty may not be called for. In fact, it might be wrong to tell the truth. The
situation will reveal to us the relationship of one value (honesty in this case) to others
(care for others, for example), and experience and thought will direct us to the
conclusion as to which value ought to be adhered to in a particular case. But whatever we
decide to do in a specific case, honesty continues to be a value: it is a good thing to be
honest. In a particular case, however, it might be better not to be
honest, because honesty is in conflict with, say, concern for the life of another human
being.
The hint of situational relativism in this example is not pernicious, because the situation does not determine the value; it merely makes it possible for us to become aware of
the value and its relation to other values in the same situation. Values themselves are not
situational, despite the fact that our awareness of them happens to be. Atten- tion must
be turned to the values in the situation that confronts us, and not to the situation in
isolation, or our personal reac- tion to the situation. This is a difficult thing to ask in an
age in which consciousness is inverted and we are preoccupied with our own reactions to
the world rather than to the world itself. But it is necessary if we are to make sense of our
moral life.
Objectivism in ethics entails the claim that values are features of our
common world and that the reasons we give in de- fending our value
judgments draw atten- tion to those values either directly or by way of other
features of our world that are related systemically to those values. Our
reasons also try to show the relationship among values. For instance, in our previ- ous
example, our reasons try to show that honesty is entailed by the thin moral
principle of respect for personsin that we would not lie to or deceive
persons who are deserving of respect, and keeping the wallet ourselves is a
form of deception. Our rea- sons also try to draw attention to features of the event
itselfthe spontaneity of the action, the implications of the finders keep- ing the wallet
himself, etc. Reasoning in this manner leads us to the conclusion that the
right thing to do in this case is to return the wallet. In this way, our ethical
judgments can be argued, defended, and if need be rejected on rational
grounds that are bind- ing across cultural boundaries.
Ethical judgments cannot always be sim- ply a matter of one persons opinion at a
particular momentthough they may be much of the time, for those who do not think
much about right and wrong. As long as attention is focused on the values
present in the situation itself (and not our personal reaction to that situation) we
can discuss the question of the truth or falsity of the value judgment in a
meaningful way. Cul- tural relativism does not allow for this kind of give and
take, because the view reduces values to our reactions to situations, sim- ply.
That is, cultural relativism reduces values to the opinions and feelings of
par- ticular people at a particular time and place . But this sort of reduction
is simplistic in the extreme . This is why cultural relativism is truly an
absurd view: it reduces situations to a particular persons take on that
situ- ation. If one adopts this position, then there is really no point in
discussing differences of opinion about what is and what is not valuable:
there is no moral high ground .
Admittedly, though, there are elements of absolutism in the objectivist view. Honesty,
for example, is always a good thing even when it must be avoided in the presence of a
greater goodas when we lie to save a friends life. Thus, while objectiv- ism smacks at
individual choices are what determine the validity of a moral principle. Its motto is,
Morality lies in the eyes of the beholder. As Ernest Hemingway wrote, "So far, about
morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is
what you feel bad after."
Conventionalist ethical relativism consists of two theses: a diversity thesis, which
specifies that what is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to society,
so that there are no moral principles accepted by all societies; and a dependency thesis,
which specifies that all moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance.
From these two ideas relativists conclude that there are no universally valid moral
principles applying everywhere and at all times. The first thesis, the diversity thesis, or
what may simply be called cultural relativism, is anthropological; it registers the fact that
moral rules differ from society to society. Although both ethical relativists and nonrelativists typically accept cultural relativism, it is often confused with the normative
thesis of ethical relativism.
The opposite of ethical relativism is ethical objectivism , which asserts that
although cultures may differ in their moral principles, some moral
principles have universal validity . Even if, e.g., a culture does not recognize a
duty to refrain from gratuitous harm, that principle is valid and the culture
should adhere to it. There are two types of ethical objectivism, strong and weak.
Strong objectivism, sometimes called absolutism, holds that there is one true
moral system with specific moral rules. The ethics of ancient Israel in the Old
Testament with its hundreds of laws exemplifies absolutism. Weak objectivism
holds that there is a core morality, a determinate set of principles that are
universally valid (usually including prohibitions against killing the
innocent, stealing, breaking of promises, and lying). But weak objectivism
accepts an indeterminate area where relativism is legitimate, e.g., rules
regarding sexual mores and regulations of property. Both types of objectivism
recognize what might be called application relativism, the endeavor to apply moral rules
where there is a conflict between rules or where rules can be applied in different ways.
For example, the ancient Callactians are their deceased parents but eschewed the
impersonal practice of burying them as disrespectful, whereas contemporary society has
the opposite attitudes about the care of dead relatives; but both practices exemplify the
same principle of the respect for the dead.
According to objectivism, cultures or forms of life can fail to exemplify an adequate
moral community in at least three ways: (1) the people are insufficiently intelligent to put
constitutive principles in order; (2) they are under considerable stress so that it becomes
too burdensome to live by moral principles; and (3) a combination of (1) and (2).
Ethical relativism is sometimes confused with ethical skepticism, the view that we cannot
know whether there are any valid moral principles. Ethical nihilism holds that there are
no valid moral principles. J.L. Mackie's error theory is a version of this view. Mackie held
that while we all believe some moral principles to be true, there are compelling
arguments to the contrary.
Ethical objectivism must be distinguished from moral realism, the view that valid moral
principles are true, independently of human choice. Objectivism may be a form of ethical
constructivism, typified by Rawls, whereby objective principles are simply those that
impartial human beings would choose behind the veil of ignorance. That is, the
principles are not truly independent of hypothetical human choices, but are constructs
from those choices.
Impacts
Laundry List
Cultural relativism is a huge contradiction and justifies mass
atrocities, racism, genocide, and more
Phillips, 2011
(Trevor Phillips, former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC),
former television executive and presenter, head of the Commission for Racial Equality,
Gay Rights, Religion, and Cultural Relativism, June 24, 2011,
http://thomasmoreinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/gay-rights-religion-andcultural-relativism, Accessed: 7/11/14, RH)
How would a consistent cultural relativist view civil rights movements which clash with
majority opinion?
Yet relativism has fallen out of fashion because, in order to be consistent, those
who celebrate advances in legal rights for gays and claim that the social
approval of homosexuality in the West reveals its moral goodness, must also
celebrate the fact that homosexuals were publicly burnt alive in fourthcentury Rome, or executed in modern day Iran or Nigeria. After all, they are
only doing what is considered good in their culture. The consistent cultural
relativist, anxious not to commit either of the capital sins of judging or imposing ones
views on other cultures, would also have to celebrate the bloody persecution of
Jews in medieval Europe (even though it was condemned at the time by
Church authorities), and might well have to side with those who scolded
black civil rights leaders in America for polarising the community and
causing social discord by aggravating majority white opinion.
Cultural relativism does not teach man how to listen to the voice of
conscience, or how to use his mind to reason about morality, but simply
pushes him to follow the herd. It is not indisputably a good thing to be a
freethinker who continually questions received moral norms. Careful consideration
may often lead to the conclusion that the mainstream view is correct. Yet
history shows that the mainstream can, and does, go awry, and a society in
which one cannot question the mind of the majority is sliding toward moral
anarchy and tyranny.
Cultural relativism falls apart when confronted with the simple truth that
each individual human being is a member of multiple societies and cultures.
I, for example, am a member of a particular family, belonging to a particular religion, a
particular ethnic group, a particular political party, and a particular nation. Even if we
accepted that the relativistic idea of truth and goodness were correct (which
it is not), we would have no way of deciding which culture, which
mainstream view, we should follow in case of a conflict. The choice of
national culture is arbitrary, owing its potency only to the power of the State to impose
its view by force, which highlights again the link between relativism and tyranny.
respect for the dignity of persons (which is the foundation of human rights) are wrong
wherever they are found.
Thus, the same line of reasoning that
leads me to conclude that the Nazis were wrong to
persecute the Jews would also lead me to conclude, within my own culture,
that Southern segregationists were wrong to oppress blacks. Reasoning
about moral- ity cannot be culturebound, and any criti- cisms of another culture that are sound, especially those
based on mini- mal morality, must also apply pari passu to ones own culture.
values of our own culture, but they are true because they are supported by evidence and
critical judgment.
(Michael Horner, Philosopher, truth seeker who promotes Christianity, IS There Any
Real Right or Wrong?, No Date,
http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/rightorwrong/page2.html, Accessed: 7/11/14,
RH)
Many people think that since we find different moral principles in different
cultures, there cannot be objective moral principles binding on all cultures;
morality must be culturally relative. This argument, however, begins with a
misleading use of data, is logically fallacious, does not allow us to make
what we would normally consider to be legitimate moral judgments, and
leads to bizarre conclusions.
A closer look at the data shows that moral commonalities among cultures
are much more abundant than moral differences. The differences are
actually a small minority. We study them in anthropology classes because they
are the exception , but in fact the vast majority of moral principles are held
in common. Moreover, many of the dissimilarities are merely variations in moral
reasoning and application of the common principles. The ethical disparity between
cultures is far less than we are led to believe .ii
Second, it doesn't follow logically that just because there are some differences between
cultures, transcendent moral principles do not exist. What follows from the fact that
culture X says action A is wrong and culture Y says action A is right? Not very much! It
does not follow that there is no objective moral truth regarding action A. It may very well
be that culture X is correct and culture Y is wrong about action A, or vice versa.
Relativity in moral belief does not entail relativity in moral truth. Belief
doesn't change truth.iii Not believing in gravity does not change the
objective fact , that if you step off the tenth floor balcony, you will fall to the
ground. Likewise not believing in a moral law does not render it inoperative or nonexistent.
Furthermore, if ethics were culturally relative it would be impossible to
evaluate cultures morally. One could not condemn as immoral what
another culture approves, even if that is racism, infanticide, ethnic
cleansing or wholesale genocide. If cultural relativism is true , the
Nuremberg war trials following the Second World War were nothing more
than a kangaroo court - a farce. Nazi war criminals defended themselves by
claiming that they were just following orders within the framework of their
culture and legal system. But Robert Jackson, chief counsel for the U.S. at the trials
responded by saying that: there is a "law beyond the law" of any individual nation,
permanent values which transcend any particular society.
Furthermore, if ethics were relative to culture, any declaration of universal
human rights would be nonsense. You can't have it both ways. If ethics are just
relative to culture, there are no universal human rights ; and if there are
universal human rights, as the United Nations believes , then ethics are not
relative to culture .
But, as we have already seen, our reactions and judgments show that we do
think that there are moral principles that transcend cultures and justify our
condemnation of such occurrences as apartheid, ethnic cleansing and the
Nazi atrocities .
The furor over the caning of the American teenager, Michael Fay, by Singaporean
authorities in the early nineties is a good example of the fact that people do think
morals are transcultural . If ethics were just culturally relative North Americans
would have no basis for claiming the caning was just or unjust. Yet both those who
support or condemn the Singaporean law, reveal that they think the moral principles at
stake are transcultural in nature.
Another problem with cultural relativism is that one seeking to reform society from
within would find oneself in a real dilemma. If whatever a culture does is right for
that culture, it would be immoral to try to initiate change, no matter how
awful the practices are, whether slavery, child labour and abuse, or denial of
women's rights. None of this is consistent with our moral sensibilities or
practices regarding making moral judgments.
Furthermore, cultural relativism leads to bizarre conclusions. Imagine an island
of 100 people. They take a vote on whether murder is right or wrong and the results are a
50/50 split. The next day some of the "murder is right" side kill one of the "murder is
wrong" side. Now the count is 50 to 49 in favor of the "murder is right" side, and murder
becomes morally acceptable.
Now let's say the "murder is wrong" side slay two of the other group. The vote is now 49
to 48 in favor of the "murder is wrong" proponents. So now murder is wrong even
though it was right when they did it, and so on! A view that leads to such absurd
conclusions cannot possibly be true.vi
Patriarchy/Sexism/FGM
Cultural Relativism enables sexist actions to occur
Namazie, 2001
dress code is mandatory, there are hardly any women voluntarily covering their face with
a veil or wearing the traditional burqah unlike Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia."
On the fact that women have only temporary child custody they said: "This system stems
from Sharia law and is applicable in most Islamic countries."
This is one example of how outrageous acts of brutality and repression by
the Iranian government are denied and excused. This is how a system of sexual
apartheid and lack of rights become mere disabilities. This is how they credit women's
own resistance to the abuser. In Iran, women not only don't cover their faces but they
continuously transgress mandatory veiling. The fact that women are 'improperly veiled'
every day on the streets has nothing to do with the regime or Khatami; it just shows that
women are protesting and opposing compulsory veiling despite its risks. Hundreds of
thousands of women have been flogged, imprisoned, had their bodies
slashed with razors, and had acid thrown in their faces so that they could
walk down the streets with their veils pushed back. Moreover, when they need
to, cultural relativists always compare the situation of women with the
worst possible example. Why not compare the situation of women in Iran with the
best possible example? When all else fails, they state that a discriminatory law is
applicable in most so-called Islamic countries and that's that, which basically means
women are well off enough, this is their Islamic culture, at least they don't cover their
faces like in Saudi Arabia, so don't oppose, leave it be, stay silent...
Western governments, the media and cultural relativists say that Iranian society is
Islamic, implying that people choose to live the way they are forced to. Just as in Canada,
however, there are people with various beliefs in Iran as well. The difference is that in
Iran Islam is in power, enforcing its culture on every one. 25 years ago when the Shah's
dictatorial regime was in power, no one called Iran a Muslim country. If Iranian society
were truly Islamic, 150,000 people would not have been executed for opposing the
Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic regime would not need such extensive tools for
repression, and the regime would not need to control people's private lives - from their
sexual activities, to what they wear. If the entire society is Muslim, why did Maryam
Ayoobi enter a voluntary sexual relationship for which she was buried in a ditch and
stoned to death? Why are thousands of women rounded up in the streets for "improper"
veiling if it's their culture and religion? In fact, these prove that this is not people's
culture but the regime's culture, the ruling class's culture imposed on women and people.
Cultural relativism maintains the Islamic regime in Iran, justifies its
violations, defends the abuser and even goes so far as to credit the abuser
for any gains made through people's own resistance. It also aims to silence
any opposition by making it seem racist to do so. It further implies that if
women " choose " to live without rights then to defend their rights means that you
are against their freedom of choice!
Clearly, civil rights, freedom and equality are universal concepts that have
been fought for by progressive social movements and the working class in
various countries. They belong to every one irrespective of where they were
born and where that struggle took place . We still see the positive effects of a
Bolshevik revolution, a Paris Commune, even the Iranian revolution, before it was
brutally suppressed and expropriated by the Islamic regime, in various parts of the world
today. That people and women worldwide, including in Iran, continue to
struggle for equality and freedom and to overcome their lack of rights and
repressive regimes is a confirmation of this universality.
FGM is unethical
Rachel, 1999
(James Rachel, graduated from Mercer University, received Ph.D. from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he taught at the University of Richmond, New York
University, University of Miami, Duke University, and the University of Alabama at
Birmingham, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, 1999,
http://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/rachels--cultural%20relativism.htm, Accessed: 7/11/14,
RH)
In 1996, a 17-year-old girl named Fauziya Kassindja arrived at Newark
International Airport and asked for asylum. She had fled her native country of
Togo, a small west African nation, to escape what people there call excision.
Excision is a permanently disfiguring procedure that is sometimes called
"female circumcision," although it bears little resemblance to the Jewish ritual. More
commonly, at least in Western newspapers, it is referred to as "genital mutilation."
According to the World Health Organization, the practice is widespread in
26 African nations, and two million girls each year are "excised." In some
instances, excision is part of an elaborate tribal ritual, performed in small
traditional villages, and girls look forward to it because it signals their
acceptance into the adult world. In other instances, the practice is carried out
by families living in cities on young women who desperately resist.
Fauziya Kassindja was the youngest of five daughters in a devoutly Muslim
family. Her father, who owned a successful trucking business, was opposed to
excision, and he was able to defy the tradition because of his wealth. His
first four daughters were married without being mutilated. But when
Fauziya was 16, he suddenly died. Fauziya then came under the authority of
his father, who arranged a marriage for her and prepared to have her excised.
Fauziya was terrified, and her mother and oldest sister helped her to escape. Her mother,
left without resources, eventually had to formally apologize and submit to the authority
of the patriarch she had offended.
Meanwhile, in America, Fauziya was imprisoned for two years while the
authorities decided what to do with her. She was finally granted asylum, but
not before she became the center of a controversy about how foreigners
should regard the cultural practices of other peoples . A series of articles in the
New York Times encouraged the idea that excision is a barbaric practice that should be
condemned. Other observers were reluctant to be so judgmentallive and let live, they
said; after all, our practices probably seem just as strange to them.
Suppose we are inclined to say that excision is bad. Would we merely be applying the
standards of our own culture? If Cultural Relativism is correct, that is all we can do, for
there is no cultural-neutral moral standard to which we may appeal. Is that true?
Is There a Culture-Neutral Standard of Right and Wrong? There is, of course, a lot that
can be said against the practice of excision. Excision is painful and it results in the
permanent loss of sexual pleasure. Its short-term effects include
hemorrhage, tetanus, and septicemia. Sometimes the woman dies. Long
term effects include chronic infection, scars that hinder walking, and
continuing pain.
Why, then, has it become a widespread social practice? It is not easy to say. Excision
has no obvious social benefits. Unlike Eskimo infanticide, it is not necessary for
the group's survival. Nor is it a matter of religion. Excision is practiced by groups
with various religions, including Islam and Christianity, neither of which commend it.
Method Turn
Cultural relativism is unethical-turns the case
Stanford University, No date
lead us into mistakes, probably culpable ones; and we are aware that by this route we can
never hope altogether to escape the accusation of ethnocentrism, but will just have to
learn to live with it (as part of our human condition).
We find cultural relativism far more appealing because its empty gestures
enable us to announce our good intentions and repudiate our cultural
biases in the abstract , with a mere wave of the hand. It enables us to
absolve ourselves all of our cultural limitations in general without ever
having to overcome any of them in particular (as we have seen, it even provides
an endorsement for them, when that is needed). But perhaps what we have really
wanted all along is a license to behave like brutal, arrogant imperialists
while at the same time thinking of ourselves as tolerant, humane
cosmopolitans who have transcended all their cultural prejudices. This
makes it unsurprising that cultural relativism has had widespread appeal among the
more sophisticated members of Western imperialist culture.
**Anthro Turn**
Anthro Turn
The aff relies on an anthropocentric hierarchy to argue that we
cannot reject animal exploitation because it is part of another
groups culture justifies defending slavery as a part of American
culture
TVL 11, This Vegan Life (On Animal Rights, Racism and Elitism,
http://www.thisveganlife.org/on-animal-rights-racism-and-elitism/)//ED
As I see it, defending animal exploitation on the basis of tradition makes as
much sense as defending American slavery as a tradition of colonists, or
defending the oppression of women as a tradition of men. Just because
something is a tradition doesnt make it ethical or desirable. Issues of justice are issues
of justice, remarks Gary Francione in Ms. Foxs article. And, as a matter of fundamental justice, we cannot morally justify animal use,
however humane. We ought, of course, always to endeavor to present issues of justice in a way that is culturally sensitive and not racist.
But there are some who think that promoting the position that we cannot justify any animal use is inherently racist or culturally
is a market for expensive, processed vegan foods. But so what? That does not make a vegan diet inherently elitist any more than a market
for people who can buy designer clothes makes wearing clothes inherently elitist .
It remains incomprehensible
to me how many people involved in other social justice work cannot see the
connections between racism, classism, sexism and speciesism. As Nekeisha
Alexis-Baker has so eloquently noted: The same ideology that supports
speciesism is present in ideologies that encourage and justify sexism and
racismAs a black woman who is vegan, I am particularly sensitive to the
ways in which forms of exploitation are intertwined So rather than being
concerned with animal liberation or womens liberation or black and other
people of colors liberation, I think we need to understand how they are all
tied together and to know that we cant free one group if we allow the same
kinds of oppressive ideologies to enslave another group . Liberation has to
come for all.
suggest as Wenzel and Lynge do that Inuit seal hunting should be accepted because it is crucial to
Inuit subsistence culture removes culture from the realm of the ethical. This
is as problematic from a postcolonial animal justice perspective as removing
nature from politics or basing ethics on biologism or ideas of the so-called natural. 147
Such a position assumes that because a practice is culturally crucial it is
irreproachable. The logical extension of such a position would mean that all
practices are beyond criticism, because we have always existed as cultural
beings. In saying this I do not mean to dismiss this invocation of cultural relativism as quickly as cultural relativists usually do. 148
Nor do I mean to discount the importance of cultural survival and self-determination for
Aboriginal peoples. Yet, recognizing the skewed cultural playing field does not
necessarily mean abstaining from criticism. We encounter several conceptual
problems if we construct cultural differences, or any other difference, as
beyond scrutiny. A primary conceptual problem in immunizing culture
involves authenticity. Receiving marginalized voices as truth-claims , as Wenzel
and Lynge advocate, creates a new brand of authenticity problems. First, any resort to
"cultural traditions" must grapple with the constructedness of traditions
and their partly imagined nature. Lisa Stevenson has noted how the organization of "disparate Inuit groups in
the Canadian Arctic" into the territory of Nunavut meant that Inuit "literally had to imagine themselves as a people, unified partially
through their difference from the rest of Canada," claiming a common, unified future in the Arctic in a way that "would have been
unthinkable" in the past. 149 And while the reality that cultural rights are based on imagined identities may not lead to an ethical
conundrum, it
One of the problems with George's argument in Animal, Vegetable, or Woman? and in a 1994 article that received much
criticism, is that many, if not all, of the reasons she cites for why vegetarianism may be out of
reach for many poor women is precisely a result of the patriarchal system
that devalues women and animals in the first place. It is not a randomly
produced feature of the world that women and children make up the greatest poverty class or that the health of
women and children is especially precarious. Nor is it an accident that "animal protein" in the
form of cheap lunchmeat or fast food is often more readily available than
vegetables in the United States. From the point of view of feminist ethical vegetarianism, these conditions
result from the very racism, sexism, classism, and anthropocentrism that is being
challenged. As Greta Gaard and Lori Gruen have pointed out, "What she [George] ignores is the well-known fact
that, around the world, it is the men and boys who eat the first and most foods, while the girls and women eat last and
least" (1996, 236). Moreover, moral ideals need not themselves be thought of as
discriminatory or elitist in the ways George has suggested, despite the fact that, in some sense, exemplifying
moral virtue may often be tied to some kind of privilege. Consider, for example, the poor mother who is paid to be
complicit with fascist torturers. Certainly, resisting participating in such a moral atrocity is more difficult for her than for
many others, but we do not thereby abandon the moral ideal of avoiding aiding and abetting torturers. We might be more
understanding of her participation, but we should not use it as a basis for abandoning the moral ideal. George's suggestion
that nearly all ethical vegetarians are moral elitists, however, threatens to slide into moral condescension, as if there
ought to be a multiple-tier, separate-but-equal system of moral ideals. Not incidentally, George's suggestion
that
feminist vegetarianism is classist and ethnocentric ignores the fact that
"most non-Western diets are largely vegetarian (perhaps by virtue of necessity):
consider Chinese, Indian, and African traditional cuisines . If anything, it is meateating that is a Western norm that 'development' has imposed upon nonWestern nations" (Donovan 1995, 227). Ironically, George's position erases the number
of poor women who are vegetarians by ethical choice , revealing the hidden
privileged perspective that serves the edifice of her argument . Often vegetarianism
has been caricatured as epitomizing petty moral privilege, with the self-appointed morally empowered vegetarian depicted
as lording it over others. As one character criticizes the vegetarian in Coetzee's novel, "It's nothing but a power-game. Her
great hero Franz Kafka played the same game with his family. He refused to eat this, he refused to eat that, he would
rather starve, he said. Soon everyone was feeling guilty about eating in front of him, and he could sit back feeling virtuous"
(1999, 68). Similarly, George objects, ethical vegetarianism assumes that "a single definable class of persons is designated
as better thanmore morally virtuous thanall others simply because of its physiology and power" (2000, 2). What I
suspect lurks below the surface of George's critique is the worry that ethical vegetarianism is somehow antihumanism
(antiwomanism), that one must choose between animals and humans. As Donovan argues in the introduction to her coedited book, it is a familiar strategy: "Just as feminists were charged with man-hating when we began to channel our
energies and our theorizing to women's needs and experiences, animal activists now stand accused of people hating"
(Donovan and Adams 1996, 4). Here, too, there is the suggestion that one cannot be both for poor women and children
and for animal welfare. The response of the New Haven Register to the PETA exhibit described above further illustrates
the point: "If you care about animals more than people, the comparison [in the PETA exhibit described above] may seem
apt. . . . There is little common ground for agreement if PETA sees the slaughter of livestock for food as the same as the
lynching of blacks or the extermination of millions of people in Europe" (quoted in Christie 2005). Not only is this analysis
a speciesist objection to the comparison but it also implies that one who takes animals seriously is ipso facto
demonstrating a failure to take humanity seriously; by George's parallel account, a feminist who takes animals seriously is
failing to take women seriously. With respect to ethical vegetarianism, I think it is clear that such a
depends, in part, on the fact that we understand our racial, gendered, and
sexual selves as contingent upon eating practices in the ways described above. Only
then can vegetarianism be used as a wedge to divide people along racial,
sexual, or class lines. A context-sensitive feminist vegetarianism with a deep
critique of the knotted relationship between racism, sexism, and
anthropocentrism offers great promise . Certainly, no viable feminist vegetarianism can proceed
without attempting to understand and dismantle such connections. As I have argued, this is so not only because of the
complex ways that the philosophical ideas have been twisted and bound together, but also for practical reasons. As it
stands now, many people still do not wish to be associated with the animal welfare and vegetarian movements. If white
Western feminist vegetarians, even well meaning ones, overlook or trivialize the historical and conceptual ties between
racism and anthropocentrism by failing to appreciate the connections between eating practices and racial identity,
feminist ethical vegetarianism will be stalled at the class and color lines. However, we should not concede
**Case**
1NC
Alt Causes
Alt causes to no whaling
Renker, 12 - Ann M. Renker received her Ph.D. in anthropology from The
American University in Washington, D.C. in 1987, A resident of the
reservation since 1986, she has also been an expert witness for the Tribe
since 1994 (Whale Hunting and the Makah Tribe: A Needs Statement,
International Whaling Commission, May,
http://iwc.int/private/downloads/ds5fzaq2p14w88ocko00o4gcw/64-ASW
%204.pdf)//jk
Lawsuits were not the only problem that the Makah Tribe faced
during this quota period. Four Tribal members alleged that the majority of
Makahs were not in favor of the resumption of whaling, and that the
Makah Tribal Council had misrepresented the opinion of its people. Fueled by
these rumors, anti-whaling advocates staged numerous
demonstrations on and off the reservation, and garnered attention
from the media. The protestors also limited the success of the
Makah hunt by blocking canoes, scaring whales, and threatening
Makah whalers. During the 1999 whaling season, many television spots and
published reports contained inaccurate or partially correct information about
the whale hunt and other Makah cultural practices, and included quotes from
the anti-whaling Makahs who insisted that the majority of Tribal members
did not want the Tribe to hunt whales. These people also accused
Makahs of wasting whale products, claiming that tribal members did
not like, nor consume, whale products. Detractors pointed to an
alleged incident when meat and blubber from a 1995 whale, which
had incidentally been caught in a fishing net, were wasted.
Churchill Bad
Churchills solution can never solve- it prevents coalition
building, supports imperialism, and begets mass violence
Argue, 7 - Steven Argue is a former leader of the socialist California Peace
and Freedom Party. (Steven, Smart Politics, Ward Churchill, Shill for U.S.
Imperialism August 16th, http://smartpolitics.tribe.net/thread/98683785bc04-46b5-a506-5cae52d011e7)//jk
The American Indian Movement is clear. Ward Churchill is a fraud that
has built his entire career around his false claim of being Native
American. Yet many on the left remain unclear about the real issues raised
by the Churchill controversy, issues that are deadly serious in their
importance to the left and the ant-war movement , not just the American
Indian Movement. Ward Churchill is an apologist for the mass murder
of working class people at the World Trade Center. Ward Churchill
said of the September 11th terrorists and mass murderers: "They
did not license themselves to target innocent civilians". There is
simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed
on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside
comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World
Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True
enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break.
They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's
global financial empire -- the "mighty engine of profit" to which the
military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved and
they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" -- a
derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" -- counts as less than an excuse
among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were
unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved
in -- and in many cases excelling at -- it was because of their absolute refusal
to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly
and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and
stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind
and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there
was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty
befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile
sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
From Some People Push Back Ward Churchill Churchill, give us a break,
Bin Laden used planes full of civilians to murder thousands of
people, including many innocent working class people at the World
Trade Center. Bin Laden was a product of billions of dollars in U.S. /
CIA intervention against the people of Central Asia. He had the same
disregard for human life as his CIA sponsors. When I went to
Nicaragua in the 1980s it was ruled by a popular revolutionary
government that had overcome the butchers of the U.S. imposed
Somoza family and was facing the mass murder of the U.S. organized and
financed Contra War. Yet I was greeted by the Nicaraguan people as a
friend, not as an enemy or little Eichman of the empire as Churchill
but not limited to Arabs, have no platform to speak, are loosing their jobs,
and are even being imprisoned for their beliefs. To call those that were
propelled into the world trade center by these Bin Laden progeny of
the CIA little Eichmans, turns reality on its head. The American
working class does not willingly give authority to the capitalist class
and its government. That government, and system, maintains its
power through lies and all kinds of coercion from economic survival
to direct repressive violence against workers and others who fight
back. Violence against the innocent people of the World Trade
Center was a crime. The fact that a few of the many were not innocent in
their roles with finance capital does not change this. Likewise, the German
people were the first victims of the Nazis. The capitalist class of
Germany put the Nazis in power to crush a rebellious working class.
It was a minority in the working class, and the population as a whole, that
supported Hitler when he seized power. After, support for Hitler became
compulsory and opposition prohibited. There is no way to gage Hitlers real
support beyond the time of his seizure of power. Hitler could have never
come to power without major backing from the capitalist class. That capitalist
class placed Hitler in power to smash the mass movements of the working
class. Hitler's supporters included a mass movement that was largely made
up of angry small business people, their disillusioned offspring, and other
petty bourgeois and former petty bourgeois elements. Such petty bourgeois
elements, many who had lost their businesses, were caught between the rock
of the failures of the capitalist system, and the hard place of worker unrest,
both cutting into their lively-hoods. These were the people who most
believed in the racial hatred taught both by Hitler and by the capitalist
system before Hitler, and who believed in fighting to defend capitalism by
any means necessary. They blamed their problems on the groups targeted
both by Hitler and the capitalist class. As such, they were well funded shock
troops that were nearly given a free reign by the capitalist government to
terrorize union workers, Jews, socialists, and communists even before Hitler
had taken power. Yes, there were a minority of workers who were fooled into
helping Hitler take power as well, but they were a minority. Many were
attracted to what they saw as needed radical solutions in the face of the
Social Democratic Partys (SPDs) inability put forward a revolutionary
program. The SPD had become just another capitalist party that had
supported the German capitalist class in the inter-imperialist First World War.
The fact that some workers supported Hitler does not change the fact that
the fascist government was created by the capitalist class with mass support
from petty bourgeois and declassed lumpen proletarian elements. Hitlers
was a government created to smash the mass movements of a rebellious
working class that had nearly overthrown the capitalist government in 1920
under the revolutionary socialist leadership of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl
Liebknecht. Just as the mass murder carried out against human beings on
three jet planes used as missiles and other innocent victims at the World
Trade Center was a crime, so was the mass murder carried out by the U.S.
government against the working class of Dresden, another non-military
target. Osama Bin Laden is an extreme lunatic of the religious right
who owes his entire career to the billions of dollars the U.S.
provided to him in his holy war against literacy, womens rights, and
Elders Oppose
Makah Elders oppose the whale hunt
Ides et al, 95 Makah Council Elders (Isabelle, Earth
Island, Whale Hunt Issue,
http://www.earthisland.org/immp/melders.html)//jk
We are elders of the Makah Indian Nation (Ko-Ditch-ee-ot) which means
People of the Cape. We oppose this Whale hunt our tribe is going to do.
The opposition is directly against our leaders , the Makah Tribal Council,
Tribal Staff, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is an arm of the United
States Government. The Makah Indian Nation has been functioning without a
quorum; two Councilmen are off on sick leave for very serious reasons,
cancer. How can any decision be legal when our by-laws state the Treasures
shall be present at every meeting? The Vice Chairman is the other man out.
The Whale hunt issue has never been brought to the people to
inform them and there is no spiritual training going on. We believe
they, the Council, will just shoot the Whale, and we think the word
"subsistence" is the wrong thing to say when our people haven't
used or had Whale meat/blubber since the early 1900's. For these
reasons we believe the hunt is only for the money. They can't say
"Traditional, Spiritual and for Subsistence" in the same breath when
no training is going on, just talk.: Whale watching is an alternative
we support.
If not for the horrendous agony they inflicted upon a defenseless whale, this
misadventure at sea would be hilarious. Straight out of a television sitcom mixing the
incompetence of the Office with the silliness of the Beverly Hillbillies.
The Parker Johnson approach to whaling seems to have been learned from Abbott and
Costello. This dynamic duo and their three stooges decided one morning a few months
ago to load up their boat with guns and harpoons and go out and get themselves a whale.
Not that it would be difficult. A number of Gray whales could be found on any given day
just outside the harbor of Neah Bay peacefully feeding and lazily swimming close to the
shore.
The unsuspecting whale had no reason to fear the approach of the boat.
After all, the whale had been in these waters for years without threat. People
and boats were harmless. So when Parker drove the first harpoon into the
whale's back, the whale screamed in pained surprise and jerked on the line
causing Wayne Johnson to drop the .50 caliber gun into the sea. In
desperation the shocked amateur whalers sank three more harpoons into
the whale and then they opened fire with a .460 Magnum rifle shooting 16
bullets into the whale's body and failing to hit a vital organ.
Alerted by the gunfire, the U.S. Coast Guard arrived on the scene to find the
whale bleeding and gasping and the whalers sitting in their boat helplessly
watching the whale thrash about in abject agony. They had run out of
ammunition. It took ten long agonizing hours for the whale to die. The Coast
Guard was stuck with the task of getting permission to euthanize the whale but because
killing a whale is a federal crime, the Coast Guard was reluctant to put an end to the
misery of the animal without permission from the National Marine Fisheries Service. It
took hours to obtain the official permission to euthanize the whale and by
that time the poor creature had bled to death.
The whale's body sank to the ocean floor. Its life had been wasted because five
men with some serious neurotic afflictions felt they had a need to prove their manliness
by slaughtering an innocent creature. The local newspaper reported that, "There's only
one reason this whale suffered: It was deliberately attacked by five
incompetents in violation of the law. Their vaunted whaling expertise wasn't up to
making a quick kill or even keeping their gun from tumbling into the deep. The result
was a prolonged spectacle of human cruelty. A rat shouldn't have to die like that, let
alone a whale under the protection of the U.S. government."
For years the argument has been raised that the Makah should be allowed to exercise
their "rights" to kill whales. Not because there is subsistence need but because they insist
they must have a cultural need to kill whales. Killing whales is what defines them as a
people some of the Makah whalers have said.
But these five Makah whalers have demonstrated that they can't even kill a
whale with modern weapons and modern boats. They have made a mockery
of the traditions of their ancestors whose whaling was inspired by necessity and
whose expertise with primitive weapons puts to shame the stumbling oafish behavior of
these five moronic nimrods from Neah Bay.
No Cultural ! 2 Whaling
Hunt has no cultural significance- no one knows the
method and they want to sell the meat
Weinbaum, 2000 - completed a Master's Degree in Global Politics at the
Ban, http://www.whitman.edu/academics/courses-of-study/rhetoricstudies/resources/public-speaking-example-outlines-videospowerpoints/whaling-ban) // jk
"Despite their treaty right, the Makah voluntarily abandoned whale
hunting for most of the next thirty years. Makah hunters were busy
plying the lucrative commercial fur seal trade. By the end of the 19"
century, the fur seal population had been almost completely
decimated, and the U.S. government moved to stop the trade. Many
Makah hunters returned to hunting whales on a limited basis. Large
scale commercial whaling operations through much of the first half of this
decade had so severely depleted the North Pacific whale populations that it
certainly contributed to the Makah's dwindling whaling efforts in the early
1900s. Makah sporadically hunted and traded whale until 1915, and
then held a few final hunts in the mid-1920s.'" b) The fact that the
Makahs are finding whaling such an important part of their people,
they would have never voluntarily abandoned it for the seal trade in
the first place. Now, seventy years later, they decide it's a necessity
again? I don't think so.
http://us.whales.org/news/1999/06/commentary-makah-whaling-also-politicalissue)//jk
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. Non-Makah cannot tell the
Makah what to do. The disrespectful behavior of some anti-whaling activists
has only deepened feelings of hostility. But we can hope the Makah will
recognize that today they are key players in the global politics of whaling.
Gray whale populations are strong, but others are not. A voluntary
suspension of Makah whaling would be a powerful blow against
those who will surely exploit Makah tradition for their own profit and
would bolster the precarious international sanctions that stand
between whales and extinction. The Makah should have faith that they
can be a proud culture without killing whales. The whales, on the other
hand, may not survive without help from the Makah.
No Solvency
Anti-oppression politics fail to decolonize, are coopted,
and reinforce cycles of oppression
Kinsman et al, ND - a Canadian sociologist. He is one of Canada's
SQ Solves DeCol
Status quo solves decolonization- UN reports ensure tribal
protection
Reuters, 12 A pretty big news source (UN official: US must return
control of sacred lands to Native Americans, NBC News, 5/5/12,
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/05/11551618-un-official-us-mustreturn-control-of-sacred-lands-to-native-americans?lite) // jk
The United States must do more to heal the wounds of indigenous
peoples caused by more than a century of oppression, including
restoring control over lands Native Americans consider to be sacred,
according to a U.N. human rights investigator. James Anaya, the U.N. special
rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, just completed a 12-day visit to the United States where he
met with representatives of indigenous peoples in the District of Columbia, Arizona, Alaska, Oregon,
Washington State, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. He also met with U.S. government officials. "I have heard
stories that make evident the profound hurt that indigenous peoples continue to feel because of the
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010 and other steps the government has taken, but
day disadvantage for indigenous peoples in the country," Anaya said. "There have still not been adequate
measures of reconciliation to overcome the persistent legacies of the history of oppression, and that there
is still much healing that needs to be done," he said. Game hunt for sacred white buffaloes riles Native
groups In Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, where some Native Americans depend on hunting and fishing,
Anaya said tribes face "ever-greater threats ... due to a growing surge of competing interests, and in some
cases incompatible extractive activities, over these lands and resources." "In Alaska, indigenous peoples
complain about a complex and overly restrictive state regulatory apparatus that impedes their access to
subsistence resources (fish and wildlife)," he said. Native American tribe gets permit to kill bald eagles
Mining for natural resources in parts of the country has also caused serious problems for indigenous
peoples. "Past uncontrolled and irresponsible extractive activities, including uranium mining in the
Southwest, have resulted in the contamination of indigenous peoples' water sources and other resources,
and in numerous documented negative health effects among Native Americans," he said. Mount Rushmore
"Securing the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands is of central importance to indigenous peoples'
"Continued
efforts to resolve, clarify, and strengthen the protection of
indigenous lands, resources, and sacred sites should be made," he
socioeconomic development, self-determination, and cultural integrity," Anaya said.
added. How genocide wiped out a Native American population Mount Rushmore, a popular tourist
attraction, is located in the Black Hills, which the Sioux tribe consider to be sacred and have territorial
claims to based on an 1868 treaty. Shortly after that treaty was signed, gold was discovered in the region.
U.S. Congress eventually passed a law taking over the land. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that the
seizure of the land was illegal and ordered the government to pay compensation. But the Sioux rejected
the money and has continued to demand the return of the now public lands. Anaya said he will make
specific recommendations on these and other issues in a full report later this year.
SQ Solves Whaling
Status quo solves legal barriers to whaling
Schabner, ND Reporter For ABC News (Dean, Evidence appears to be
from 2002 but the website doesnt specify, Save The whales, kill a
culture?, http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90125&page=1)//jk
The Makah may be nearing the end of their legal fight, though. On May
17, a federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., refused to issue a restraining
order to stop the Makah from whaling until a decision is reached in
the animal rights groups' lawsuit against the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service, and
the Commerce Department agencies that cleared the way for the tribe to
resume the hunt. In the suit, the groups claim that the agencies did not do a
thorough job of assessing the potential impact of Makah whaling both on
the whale population and on public safety, because of the risk of stray bullets
as the whalers try to shoot their prey. Judge Franklin Burgess said in his
ruling that the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed, since there is no evidence
that the Makah hunt will have any impact, other than the "aesthetic,
emotional" effect on the animal rights groups. Five days after the judge's
ruling, the animal rights groups said they would appeal. Another potential
obstacle to the Makah resuming their hunt was removed Friday when
the International Whaling Commission, meeting in Shimonoseki, Japan,
approved a U.S. request to allow the tribe to kill four gray whales a
year in a re-vote after the proposal was voted down on Thursday.
The commission turned down another request by the United States
to allow Eskimos to take 55 bowhead whales over five years, and one
from Russia to allow the Chukotka to hunt 120 whales per year. The
Eskimo tribes and the Chukotka both depend on whale as a major
food source. According to some observers, the vote to deny the
requests was orchestrated by Japan in retaliation for international
efforts to maintain the commercial whaling moratorium imposed on
Japanese coastal communities.
the state each year on their way between Alaskan and Mexican waters.
Donna Darm, associate deputy administrator for the NOAAs west region, said
a new statement incorporating that information should be ready for
public review by the fall. Theres been a lot of new science that we
received since the 2008 draft, Darm told the Daily News on Thursday. That
information will not necessarily affect the tribes hunt, but it will
require that tribal hunters carefully identify what group any future
whales they take come from, according to the Daily News. Whaling is a
centuries-old tradition for the tribe at the tip of Washingtons Olympic
Peninsula. The Makah are guaranteed whaling rights under their 1855
treaty with the U.S. For centuries, the Makah hunted gray whales
but stopped hunting in the 1920s after the grays were decimated by
commercial whaling. The tribe sought to resume whaling after gray
whales were removed from the federal endangered species list in
1994. The Makah applied in 1995 to again exercise its treaty right to
hunt whales, and it killed a 30-foot gray whale during a hunt 15
years ago.
(Lynda V. Mapes, Seattle Times staff reporter, writer, Some Makahs oppose whale
hunt, 1998, http://www.orcahome.de/makah.htm, Accessed: 7/14/14, RH)
NEAH BAY , Clallam County - This yew harpoon, hand-carved more than a century ago,
is at home in Charles "Pug" Claplanhoo's weathered hand. Claplanhoo knows the courage
behind every one of the 131 tacks that stud the family heirloom, each one marking a
whale killed for the Makah by one of his ancestors. But despite his link to a heritage of
whaling, the hunt planned by his tribe this fall - the first in 70 years - will happen
without Claplanhoo's blessing. On the eve of this disputed hunt, now planned to
begin Sunday, some among this seafaring tribe murmur a chorus of quiet
dissent. They say there is no need to return to old hunting traditions to be
fully Makah . They say the elders weren't consulted. They say the hunt is a
distraction from more important work . They say, in voices both angry and sad,
that the tribe has little to gain and much to lose by going back to sea - this
time with an elephant gun and a harpoon. Their dissent is not active; tribal members all
say they support their legal treaty right to hunt. Their dissent is not loud; this remote
reservation town can be both a sanctuary and a prison for its 2,000 residents. Those who
speak out are criticized for disloyalty to their leaders, for airing the tribe's laundry to the
outside world. But, when asked, some, like Claplanhoo, say they cannot bless
this hunt. Claplanhoo is not opposed to whaling. Indeed, he holds dear the
family heirlooms - the yew harpoon, the cedar-bark basket that holds the
seal-gut harpoon line, the long pointed stick used to stab into the whale's
blowhole. But he thinks the energy is misplaced . "Let's move on, take care of the
tribe," he said. "If they fought like they are fighting for this whale for our fishing rights,
maybe there would be more jobs." His cousin, "Sonny" Wilbur Claplanhoo,
doubts the whaling crew is skilled enough to hunt safely ; his family's
harpoon was last used to kill a whale in 1910. He says he wouldn't want his
son on the whaling canoe. Alberta Thompson has stood alone among tribal members
in her vocal and visible opposition to the hunt. A 1997 boat trip among the whales
in the Baja, paid for by animal-rights activists, convinced her whaling is
wrong. "They are such wonderful, gentle giants, so intelligent, and they have
such a spirit of trust," said Thompson, 74. "I've paid dearly for standing up, but if I
had it to do over again, I would." In recent weeks, she lost her tribal job of 15 years and
discovered her dog dead in a field. "You could never prove that's why these things
happened," Thompson said of her steadfast opposition. "But I believe it." Her dismissal
letter from the tribal council says she was fired for using office time and telephones to
call whaling opponents. And her sincerity has been questioned by whaling supporters,
who scoff at a $10,000 award for bravery offered her by Paul Mitchell Systems, a haircare corporation, and a paid job as "ambassador to the whales" offered her by the Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society. Thompson rejected the job on the advice of her attorney.
It is a testament to how things work on the reservation that Thompson's public stance
has actually hurt her cause; some tribal members who have misgivings about the hunt
have grown more quiet to distance themselves from her, and from trouble.
Constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of assembly don't carry the same weight
on the reservation, where tribal law rules. The tribal police are authorized to throw
anyone off the reservation deemed an enemy of the tribe. Supporters of the hunt have
stepped into that silence with their own message: The discomfort of individuals must not
overshadow the value of the hunt for the whole tribe. The commitment to honor history
has been a unifying force, they say, drawing together long-feuding factions of the tribal
community. "It's really pulled everyone together," says whaler Wayne Johnson. "I had
enemies here before I was even born because of disagreements in the past." Kids toting
"Kill the Whales" signs are greeted with smiles. Some hunt protesters are booted out of
town, left to camp down the road, across the reservation border. Boats operated by
protesters are not allowed to moor at the tribal marina. Tribal leaders speak with pride of
the support they say the hunt enjoys in Indian Country. Tribes from throughout
Washington and coastal Canada will travel to Neah Bay tomorrow for a pre-hunt
celebration of feasting and traditional dances. The gathering is expected to be a joyous
show of solidarity for the Makah, who are standing up to worldwide opposition to claim
their treaty rights and reclaim their whaling heritage. The hunt has been sanctioned by
some tribal elders; Helma Ward, mother of the vice chairman of the tribal whaling
commission, has lent important and prestigious endorsement. But other tribal
elders, like Margaret Irving, 83, and her two sisters, Isabell Ides, 98, and
Ruth Claplanhoo, 96, have withdrawn from the tribe's public conversation
over a return to whaling. Time changes things, Irving said. No living Makah has
ever whaled, and she worries someone will be killed in the hunt. "I don't go
for it myself. But I keep out of it," she said. "They are doing what they want to do. All I
can do is pray for them." She said she has been gratified that some of the younger
members of the tribe have questioned the hunt. And she was hurt that, despite her
standing as a tribal elder, she was not consulted. "To me, they didn't get any
knowledge from the elders, and that's what's made me very unhappy," she said. "They
can't get enough fish for the potlatches, but they are only after the whale. It makes me
sad." Her eldest sister, Isabell Ides, is the oldest living Makah. Ides and their middle
sister, Ruth Claplanhoo, live in adjacent houses on the reservation and are the last two
fluent speakers of the tribal language. Their grandmother, Susie Napoleon, had seven
brothers, all of them whalers. Ruth Claplanhoo said her grandmother was drafted to
paddle a whaling canoe when the crew was a person short. So they know the value of
tribal culture. But the sisters say whaling is not how they wish to preserve their
heritage. "It stirred up a can of worms," Ruth Claplanhoo said. "It brought up the white
people's true feeling toward us. Now they are giving us all this trouble about the whale."
She reserves her strongest criticism for the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which
she says is threatening the tribe's whaling canoe with its two big ships parked outside the
breakwater of the tribal marina. The international attention and outrage focused
on the whale hunt will only grow worse if there is a confrontation at sea, she
said. "I'm afraid someone is going to get hurt," Claplanhoo said. "We have lost
enough. We lost our land. We lost our language. We've lost most of our
songs." Ides remembers her father butchering a great Grey on the beach, and the taste
of whale meat in her hungry mouth. But she wants no part of this hunt. "I don't care
about the whale," Ides said. "We went without the whale all this time. . . .
Nobody even knows how to prepare (the meat)." Sidney Bowechop, 58, a
retired logger, worries that the whale will be wasted, drawing even more
criticism. "These people around here aren't going to eat it," he said. "If
McDonald's fixes it or Burger King makes a whale burger, they will eat it. But they
don't have the foggiest idea how to eat what the old people used to eat." Many
here believe that gaining approval to hunt whales was an important test of treaty rights.
But many, like Jesse Hax-Sta Ides, don't think the tribe has to actually kill a whale to
demonstrate that right. "As long as the sun comes up and sets in the West and
the grass is still green, that's how good that treaty is," said Ides, 58. "Our
elders taught us not to give any of that up. "But they don't have to prove it by
killing a whale. . . . In these new modern computer times, it's wrong. I think the guys
doing it are trying to make an identity within." Vivian "Kibby" Lawrence, a former tribal
chairman, also is content to see her family's whaling traditions reside in the past. Tribal
identity needs no boost from a harpoon, she said. "I don't understand all the hoopla
that's going on. We have always been simply Makah," said Lawrence, whose greatgrandfather, James Claplanhoo, was one of the tribe's great whaling chiefs. " We have
never lost our culture. Whaling won't make a difference in my life. " At a
recent family birthday party, Lawrence and her sister, Linda Moss, sang old tribal songs
in Makah. They know so many, they say they can sing for hours without ever repeating a
single one. As Moss took up a drum, the living room furniture was shoved aside to clear
the floor for the children, who stepped and giggled their way through ancient family
dances on the wall-to-wall carpeting. The dances, passed on from generation to
generation, depict the antics of sea serpents, snipes, whales and horses. An ancient tribal
chief's hat made from cedar bark was brought out of a back bedroom, and Wilbur
Claplanhoo clapped it on his head. Lawrence's grandson Michael, 16, put on a
ceremonial shawl and cedar wolf mask, then spun and high-stepped as his relatives sang
and drummed, and the Seattle Seahawks played on TV in the background. The wolf mask
barely cleared the fan hanging from the low living-room ceiling. The family doesn't need
whaling to tell them they are Makah, Lawrence said. "We know who we are and what we
are," Lawrence said. "I don't need a whale killed to be any more Makah than I have been
my entire life."
USFG Supports
The USFG supports Makah Whaling- means status quo
solves and the thesis of the aff is wrong
Martin, 12 - J.D. Candidate at Willamette University
College of Law (Thomas, Social Science Research Network,
Whaling Rights of the Makah,
file:///C:/Users/0089607588/Downloads/SSRN-id2129582.pdf,
June 2012)//jk
In Part III, I discuss the guardianward relationship between the United States
and the Makah. Federal agencies, most notably the NOAA, have
advocated for Makah whaling rights before the IWC and in federal
court. The IWCs response to these federal efforts was a poorly
drafted revised schedule to the International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). The NOAAs litigation efforts to
fight off conservationist groups were unsuccessful, as the Ninth
Circuits Anderson decision ordered the NOAA to prepare a full
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).20 Moreover, Anderson held
that the Tribe must obtain a MMPA waiver before resuming rights held under
the treaty.21 While the Makah and conservationist groups may have certain
ideals (that happen to be in direct conflict with each other), the reality is that
the federal government will have the last word, with some influence
from the International Whaling Commission (IWC). In short, this
amounts to striking a middle ground whaling will be allowed but
inevitably the United States will attach strings. The Makahs
response is an understanding, willful compliance. The majority of
conservationist groups will accept nothing less than a complete ban, and so
they will likely be disappointed