Sea Shepherd: Heroism, terrorism or imperialism?
Posted on February 4, 2010 by
I wrote a post inspired by whaling on my personal blog last week and with your forbearance today, I’d like to follow that train of thought and, in the process, change my scientist’s hat for a philosopher’s.
Down on my side of the world, the sinking of the Sea Shepherd ship Ady Gil has received a lot of press and reignited the debate over Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean. Despite prohibitions put in place in the 1980’s by the International Whaling Commission, the Japanese have continued to hunt whales in the waters of Antarctica for ‘research purposes’ (read thinly veiled commercial whaling), much to the chagrin of environmental groups and the Australian and other governments.
Sea Shepherd is a fringe environmental group that confronts whaling vessels and seeks to stop them from killing whales using whatever means necessary. They’ve rammed whaling ships, used lasers to blind sailors, scuttled ships in harbour, and destroyed nets. The group self-identifies as environmental pirates and has been labeled as terrorists by Japanese whalers and Glenn Beck alike. However, the have become increasingly popular among many environmentally minded people, receiving celebrity and political endorsements from around the world.
Like most of you, I’m opposed to whaling for commercial or ‘research’ purposes. Cetaceans – whales, dolphins and porpoises – have relatively large brains and are thought by much of the scientific community to be among the most intelligent mammals. I’m not a fan of killing any animals, (although I am immersed in quite the ant war right now) but the slaying of very intelligent animals like primates and cetaceans is just abhorrent. But it is the methods that whalers use that I find most offensive. When a whale is spotted, whalers pursue and fire a grenade harpoon at their prey. If the initial blast does not kill the animal, then a second harpoon may be fired or whalers shoot the animal with a rifle until it dies. Greenpeace activists claim to have observed harpooned whales being dragged through the water until they drown.
I can see the appeal of Sea Shepherd. Frustrated by the lack of effective action taken by world governments and the international community to stop Japanese whaling they’ve taken the problem into their own hands. They are self-styled environmental pirates, with their ships flying the skull and crossbones. And they take the fight directly to the source, risking life and limb in the frigid Southern Ocean to directly interfere with the slaying of whales.
But I’m not sure that Sea Shepherd’s ends justify their means. The parallel that comes quickly to mind is the actions of extreme anti-abortion groups. Groups like the Army of God and the American Coalition of Life Activists have been directly or indirectly involved with vandalism, invasion or bombing of clinics that offer abortion services. Extreme anti-choice activists have murdered nine abortion providers or clinic staff since 1993. Sea Shepherd has not yet been responsible for any human deaths but both extreme anti-abortion and extreme anti-whaling advocates are taking an ‘any means necessary’ approach to stop a practice that they consider to be abhorrent. Why support one and condemn the other? Personally, I am sympathetic to Sea Shepherd but consider the Army of God to be a terrorist organization. But is that solely because of my personal political beliefs? I’m fairly sure that if we asked Glenn Beck he’d have a different opinion of both groups.
Beyond the ends versus means debate is an interesting thesis that one of my commentators brought up. I’ll let her remain anonymous as she fears nasty mail in her letterbox, but what if the (largely) white, (largely) Judeo-Christian Western environmental movement is attempting to impose its cultural norms on another society? Are Sea Shepherd and other environmental groups engaged in a type of cultural imperialism? Whaling has been a part of Japanese culture since the 12th century. Then in 1982, fifteen Western nations proposed a ban on commercial whaling, a ban to which the Japanese strongly objected. Now, Japanese whalers are under constant pressure from environmental advocacy groups to change a practice that has been a part of their society for 800 years.
But what if the tables were turned? What if, just for argument’s sake, an Eastern religious group placed pressure on Western nations to keep their women covered, to impose the burka or hijab into American or Australian society? How would we respond to that political pressure? Food for thought.
Enough from me, what do you think?
[...] when you manage to get out of your parkas and your fingers thaw, go and check out my post on The Greenists today. It’s an extension of our conversation about [...]
On that closing thought (whaling vs. burka): One is attempting to force a culture to cease a practice while the other would be forcing a culture to adopt one. Big difference because no rights are impinged by not killing whales, especially the whales’.
I’ve always said that I admire, to some degree, the conviction of any kind of extremist. If you really believe in something and think it really is important, you should be willing to die for it (and maybe even kill for it), deluded and misinformed though you may be. But, since I disagree with the goals (and therefore methods) of Army of God, I’m not a fan. Sea Shepherd lines up more with my own philosophies, so their brand of extremism is more palatable. I’m picking sides, and I don’t think that creates any philosophical inconsistencies.
Shouldn’t we all aspire to someday be condemned by Glenn Beck? Oh, to dream.
Good post, and I agree that whaling is unconscionable in the 21st century, but surely there is a better way to deal with the whalers than to blind them with lasers. There are better ways to live up to one’s beliefs and convictions without stooping to violence. Fundamentally, I disagree with the whole “by any means necessary” philosophy because there is always SOME means that would be absolutely UNnecessary, no matter the situation.
As for imposing cultural norms on others, well, cultural norms are always changing. Whaling has been a part of Japanese culture for so long because it’s been a commercially viable industry for so long. I have a feeling that once people quit getting paid to do it, whaling will cease to be a part of Japanese “culture.” One could make the same argument that slavery was part of American culture for a long time, and while change didn’t come easy, America survived after it was gone. So will Japan.
I’m not even sure I buy the idea that any sort of industry is part of a region’s culture. Religion, food, clothing, sure. But industries grow because some people saw the opportunity to make money somewhere, and once that well dries up, they’ll go make money somewhere else. I’m not sure that culture suffers as a result.
In regards to the idea that ending whaling may be ‘cultural imperialism’ in disguise, one needs to understand that whaling is not a cultural issue, nor is it a race or human issue – whaling is both a moral and environmental issue. People can argue all day and night about whether Sea Shepherds brand of intervention is the most appropriate means to an end – I for one am thankful that a group of people are willing to stand up and stop the senseless slaughter of these intelligent sentient beings. Hopefully one day we will all wake up and cease this extermination of fellow living beings – not for legal reasons, but because we recognize that such practices are wrong and have no place in today’s modern world.
Courtney – The slavery analogy is a really good one. Part of the reason that slavery was eventually outlawed in the US was due to heavy pressure from Britain and the continent.
Their intentions may be sound and sincere OR it may be ruled by ego and pride to what they are doing. In my opinion, extremism is simply wrong, unstable, unbalanced. It is the balance of all living creatures to thrive and coexist peaceful is what every one is after. The idea that there is enough for all and no one group is being put to the edge for it. Sure, I am all about saving the whales…Very much so. I am an animal biologist myself and can stand to see the unrelention action being put on these amazing creatures. And I don’t agree with it one bit. However, this extreme endeavor of the Sea Shepard quite frankly is frightening. It is not at all “balanced”, it is completely “ANTI-” which raises all kinds of bleak resistances that only build up with rage over time and can in turn make things more devastating. If you ask a Sea Shepard crew, “How far would you go?” What would they say. Would this extremism narrow their eyes so much so that all that they can see is fulfilling out this disruptive behavior? Will the lives of other species’ suffer on this account? I think they’re are missing the point of their intentions. The point is, just like every other soul on this amazing Earth, the wish is to live peacefully. Maybe it is hard to find the answer to how we should deal with such oppositions. What am I saying “Maybe”? it IS hard. We’re all in this together. Only when we come together with peace in our hearts do we accomplish the greatest.
I think the cultural imperialism point has already been addressed quite intelligently…
The only thing I was uncomfortable about when I read your post was the bit about blinding sailors. But I looked up Sea Shepherds, and from what I can make out, what they do is merely “temporarily blinding and disorienting” them. Which I think is fair. If we have accepted the basic premise that whaling is illegal and immoral and should be stopped, I don’t see the problem in a non-governmental organisation doing what the government cannot do (or does not want/care to do). Protests obviously don’t work, and without the option of more subtle violence that governments can perpetrate, an NGO is left with relatively crude violence of the type that these guys are engaging in. What else can they do – arrest the whalers? Confiscate their property? No one has been murdered or maimed. Weigh the loss of property against the lives of animals we all agree should not be killed… I myself find it perfectly acceptable and fair.