There has been much discussion about whaling at his blog and some discussion about why the Japanese continue to hunt whales in the name of research.
It is a very foreign and offensive concept to many of us in countries like Australia even though, we had our own whaling fleets not so many years ago.
Yesterday I was sent a link to a recent story in the Japan Times explaining that despite efforts from surfers and local residents about 50 melon-headed whales were recent stranded and died in Chiba Prefecture.
The newspaper article goes on to explain that some of the dead mammals were examined by experts to try to learn the cause of death, while the remaining were to be buried in the town.
I have heard about whale cemeteries in Japan. And one reader of this blog has told me how he attended a buddhist ceremonies in Nagato where thanks was given to whales that had been killed through whaling, as well as those foetuses that have been found in pregnant females.
The ceremony also included the naming of these foetuses in a book.
Whales and whaling evidently has a deep cultural resonance in at least some parts of modern Japan.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
And on the subject of whaling, on the 3rd March (2006) I was sent an email from a shearer (who occasionally reads this blog) mentioning that he had heard on ABC radio that morning that a 1864 Australian cook book included reference to whale steaks.
I’m not entirely sure what the point of these two posts are, but presumably they hinge on the comment that ‘Whales and whaling evidently has a deep cultural resonance in at least some parts of modern Japan.’
Am I to assume that ‘deep cultural resonance’ is in some way a justification for whaling as currently practiced in Japan, including the ‘scientific whaling’ programmes? This isn’t explicit and I don’t want to infer something incorrectly. Any chance of elaboration?
Refloating stranded cetaceans
I assume that the example of ‘surfers and local residents’ trying to save some stranded melon-headed whales isn’t an example of ‘deep cultural resonance’ that provides justification for whaling, as refloating stranded cetaceans happens regularly in Australia.
But maybe it is, and demonstrates that whales have ‘deep cultural resonance’ for Australians too? That would suggest that ‘deep cultural resonance’ of itself is insufficient as a justification for whaling.
Whale temples
Perhaps it’s the reference to being buried in town, leading to the story of whale cemeteries.
Maybe whale cemeteries and associated festivals provide the ‘deep cultural resonance’. But temples and festivals are found elsewhere in along the coasts of eastern Asia. Vietnam, for instance. The Vietnamese get by without a whaling fleet, or a ‘scientific whaling’ programme.
Australia
The reference to the cookbook and whale steaks feeds back to the initial comment that whaling is a foreign concept for Australians. If Australians really see whaling as foreign, then we have short memories and poor historical knowledge (I realise that both of these may be true).
Sperm whaling off Albany stopped in 1978. Whaling was one of the (if not the) first export industries associated with the colony of New South Wales.
Cookbooks
I’ve also seen recipes for cooked dolphin in articles written by the colonial authorities in Sri Lanka (then Ceylon). And dolphin recipes from the southern US in the 1920s, coupled with advice on how to make harness leather from dolphins.
People from many places hunted marine mammals in the past. The relevance is?
Peter,
You ask the relevance of this post – perhaps just more information about a topic of interest to many readers.
Your response suggests that whatever the piece of information, you will use it to argue against whaling?
And you raise some interesting points – more food for thought.
Present day attitudes of many Japanese to whales are similar to those elsewhere. Attempts to rescue stranded whales or bury dead ones are most probably of no deeper cultural significance than they are here. As for the Buddists, they oppose the killing of any animals. Their concern for the spirits of the whales killed in whaling is anything but an endorsement.
It is not at all uncommon to find early religious practices that honour the animals that are hunted. And it is drawing a very long bow to suggest that buddist teaching, as merged with the earlier Shinto beliefs, could be interpreted as eschewing the hunting of any animal that has been so honoured.
I just want to get some blackfellas together to barbecue the next stranded whale in a bush tucker extravaganza. Right on main beach at Byron Bay.
It seems we save stranded whales in a nano-second and ignore sick elderly ladies like Auntie Delmae for hours on end. Makes you feel real proud, don’t it?
Jennifer
Well, then I’ve just provided a little more information on the topic.
As for this:
>Your response suggests that whatever the piece of information, you will use it to argue against whaling?
Not necessarily.
The Auntie Delmae incident is deplorable but surely not relevant to the debate.
And I think BBQing a dead whale at Byron Bay would be a great idea. Should improve the anti-whaling stance no end. We’ll arrange the media.
“Man eats whale for dinner !”
I can see the cameras filming the chain-saws carving off whale fillets now.
Chainsaws? An axe is soooh empowering. Yes, you guys do ‘arrange’ the media, don’t you. I wonder what Chanel 7 will pay for the exclusive? Lets see, $70,000 divided by 7 tonne Minke is $10/kg live weight. Not bad, not bad at all.
No no – this would be a grassroots movement – no fees pls. Although we could have “World Series Whaling”.
I think the Auntie Delmae incident is very relevant to this debate, Phil. We have a very large cohort in this community that has far more compassion for animals than they do for ordinary men and women. And it must be said that this is a by-product of urban anonymity that is very rare in rural communities.
And that is why the demonising and moralising by urban interests as to the ‘sustainability’, or ‘intergenerational equity’ of rural activities is so obscene.
We have nice, intelligent and urbane people who are offended by the transport of live animals to countries where train passengers put up with worse conditions. The term “redneck” falls so easily from their lips to imply a certain intellectual and moral deficit. But that red neck is the proudly worn badge of a culture that would never step over a person dieing.
And it is not a race issue, a few years back a fellow visiting from out of town took three hours to die of a coronary, in the hot mid morning sun, beside one of Brisbane’s busiest thoroughfares.
And these sort of people think they know what is best for the environment, the bush and future generations? Give me a break.
Ian – well we don’t have statistics do we. And the old cognitive dissonance is probably kicking in for both of us about now.
I think a number of friends and colleagues with green persuasions might be offended by what you say (even though you may be right).
So if you and I were in the Valley perhaps having enjoyed a jazz evening (well we wouldn’t be there for any other reason would we!?) and we come across somebody slumped against a wall down from a nightclub what do we do? Is he drunk or having heart attack. Or perhaps if the venue was South Brisbane and we were strolling past Musgrave Park and find a person in a similar state what do we do? Clearly it’s not always obvious, sometimes personally dangerous and stereotyping is unwise.
I would at least make a phone call to the police. But then again I get touched for money by beggars in town too. But I think maybe if I was down on my luck someone might do the same. And I always seem to be picking up hitchhikers around your part of the world too for some reason. That’s how you find out that alternative type persons are using herbicide on Camphor Laurel and how long it takes to grub out Lantana. (and no I didn’t inhale or partake !)
In terms of public transport – I see you’ve been on Brissy trains lately. The difference is that it’s not a few weeks and you can get off.
Interestingly the few times I have found myself broken down on the side of the road – it’s only the indigenes that stop to assist.
Anyway – you may well be right – but it’s depressing stuff if you are. (P.S. Various P.a.f’s say get stuffed on the issue – but they’d still stop for you even if they knew it was you!)
In Taiji, Japan, there are a number of dolphinariums where the public can get up close and personal with dolphins that no doubt perform unnatural behaviours in an endeavour to make them appear more ‘human’ and accessible. In this same area there is a dolphin drive fishery. Some of these animals are slaughtered for market and some are shipped off to other dolphinariums. In an interview for Foreign Correspondent last year, the owner of the dolphin export industry said it fostered greater conservation of dolphins. The dolphinariums in Taiji have certainly had no positive effect for the bludgeoned animals out in the nearby bay.
Ian why are they ‘blackfellas’ and not Aboriginals? Being of Aboriginal decent myself, I find it strange to use such a term in this day and age. But then being a ‘bullockie’s daughter’ has that same sort of colonial twang to it as well, eh?
Ian I’ve asked a few people if and then why they feel more compassion when they hear of an injured/endangered animal v’s injured person. They can’t explain why, but I’m aware it’s getting more attention from pychologists. Some theories to do with evolution among nature. Others, to do with coping mechanisms in overwhelmingly peopled environments, or fear (when it’s a confronting situation) or emotional fatigue. It is troubling. No doubt it’s also about what’s familiar: many people would probably be more upset about their introduced cat being hit by a car than by a cute marsupial species going extinct. Perhaps we’re seeing the effects of the recent decade of Austns being more mean.
It’s nice to have the whale debate family back together on this thread. Re: Libby’s comment, see a wonderful example here (video):
http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,11965-5451259-300,00.html
(don’t miss the irony of the patronising closure, ie people go there to be made happy).
BTW Libby, you got off lightly – you should have heard what Ian called me before it was deleted. Either his mum isn’t alive to wash his mouth out with soap and water or she’s a bullocky’s or a lumberjack’s daughter herself.
“Ian I’ve asked a few people if and then why they feel more compassion when they hear of an injured/endangered animal v’s injured person. They can’t explain why, but I’m aware it’s getting more attention from pychologists.”
Because they are misanthropists? See: Peter Singer. The population bomb is not a doomsday scenario for a lot of greenies – it’s a utopia.
Libby, I use the term “Blackfella” because I was told by a friend that this was his and others preferred term of reference because it was the term they developed to describe themselves. Terms like “Murri” and “Kurri” refer to blackfellas of a particular location. I was informed that it’s use is a courtesy, in recognition that the term “aboriginal” is the whitefellas word, not theirs.
And Thinksy, my mother is a settlers daughter, who, like me, has the utmost respect for real people but zero respect for invented ones. And the context was by way of explanation as to what one could say to a person who does not exist and is, therefore, without status under the Defamation Act.
And as for the psychology, it seems in part a function of urban anonymity, where no one knows who you are so no one can disapprove. Place them in a situation where people they know are observing their behaviour and they gain a sense of responsibility.
It would probably also have an element of lack of ownership of public space, lack of community if you will. What it tells me is that humans have a capacity to respond to only a fairly limited concept of tribe. So cities tend to fragment into age and lifestyle determined tribes to which the fullest range of loyalties and obligations apply. And as these tribes form alliances as larger entities, the obligations weaken in inverse proportion to scale.
For people in the bush, this capacity for urban people to disconnect themselves from their obligations to each other, and therefore us, is the most disturbing aspect of remaining in the same political entity. For once defined as outsiders, the common obligations can be applied selectively.
So the bush is currently going through the same realisation that blackfellas must have come to about a century and a half ago. That is, “the responsibilities that these guys feel for each other do not extend to us”.
Funny to read Ian trying to be diplomatic. Like the glove is on the wrong hand.
And then he calls for a bushlaw sitting of Gumnut Court again.
I agree on the malaise of urban areas, but part of the problem is our model of urban planning & development. ie it doesn’t encourage interaction or communities to develop. Add into it the long working hours (av. Australian working among the highest hours in the developed world) and stress over making ends meet and it gets even more impersonal. Hence they don’t talk to their neighbours or know when they’ve died.
Some densely populated European cities have more integrated business/apartments/pedestrian areas and do better at cultivating personal relationships (altho culture plays a part & we’ve just spent 10 yrs getting ‘meaner’ apparently).
Your general stance is that you’re completely separate from the rot of the cities and the eternal victim of urban-caused problems. ‘Blame the cities’ – won’t solve anything,esp comig from Byron hinterlands which is far from being remote rural. Other bushfolk would call you a city slicker.
For people in the bush, this capacity for urban people to disconnect themselves from their obligations to each other, .. .. .. ..
That is, “the responsibilities that these guys feel for each other do not extend to us”.. .. ..
Jeez that’s bloody harsh Ian – lot’s of children of rural folk are joining the urbanites. There has always been that connection. Is the average Aussie complaining about drought aid in Exceptional Circumstances. The work that many charitable organisations like Rotary and Lions do in time of drought. Responses to Farm Hand etc. OK might not be much but the sentiment is still there. My own family has roots and family in the Charleville district. Many families have links past and present.
Then there’s the many charitable causes and levels of volunteerism in cities themselves. We’re not all heartless bastards commuting to Riverbank Plaza in our Porsches’ every day !
Whether it be Tasmania or central Queensland – the common issue that you guys are up in arms about is tree clearing/forestry. It’s rights about management of trees that is 90% of the debate. And this is the essential ongoing divide between country and city. This one issue.
Phil, I accept that there are many people in the city with continuing links to the bush. And I also accept that a concern for community is a trait that is very strong in parts of the cities. But they are a minority.
We also need to recognise who has been calling the shots for the past 30 years or more. There has been very little of the bush imposing their will on the cities and bucket loads of the reverse.
There was no outcry when Sen. Bob Brown used his 48,000 vote senate quota to routinely thwart the will of the elected majority government but did you hear the entire spectrum of urban squeals when Barnaby had the gall to use his 330,000 votes to represent the interests of his rural community.
So we have very sound reasons for taking the view that all the erosion of moral, ethical, administrative and legal standards are not of our doing.
You can’t just spend three decades calling all the shots, with a callous disregard, not just for the views, but also the rights and liberties of the rural minority, and then try to “share” responsibility for the adverse consequences.
And I can certainly tell you that it is not the fact of the clearing controlls that is most offensive. It is the manner in which it was implented, and the disrespect for commonly held rights and liberties in it’s administration, that has trashed the social contract.
Ian – well the way Pete is going – the other guys might get a run. So the issue for you guys is in the event of the other lot getting back in – what do you do? Witchhunt – put the dogs on us? Do you repeal all the vegetation acts and go back to a “free for all” – what do you do given the chance ?
So what do you tell Lawrence? Want to do a hypothetical?
Apologies to all for keeping off thread – but we’re having an interview here with Ian on an issue of some import – just go around us.
Good question, Phil. Do you have time for the 40 page document or the Sunday night top of the head job?
The first step should be to scrap the definition of clearing, being the cutting or otherwise destroying any tree. This approach of defining all tree destruction as clearing and then implementing a range of exemptions has clearly failed.
It should be replaced by a definition based on material change of vegetation. At present, a guy with 3 million trees, that he may even have regenerated himself, can get busted for cutting one tree without the right exemption. A “material change” based definition would obviously have an element of scale so the guy with only 5 trees on 500 hectares will be deemed to be clearing if he cuts one down while the guy with 3 million trees would be deemed to be clearing when the total area covered by canopy has been reduced by 20% or where the proportion of canopy cover has been reduced by 51%.
And it would be a cumulative question of fact. So a person who removes all trees from 5% of his land each year for 3 years would then be advised that 5% more would constitute clearing for which, depending on the status of the regional vegetation, may require consent. The landowners options would then be, apply on merits or regenerate some more forest elsewhere.
We should go back to the Regional Vegetation Management Planning process and fill it with real stakeholders who actually reflect the communities in those regions. We should consider each issue on a proper, state of the science, basis with positions presented by the major players. And with formal right of reply on each point.
The process needs to distinguish between statements of perception or opinion and formal inputs of fact to the policy process. It should distinguish between uncontested fact, contested claim of fact, accepted assumption, contested assumption, and identify the person, or persons, who will accept responsibility for it’s introduction to the process.
The implementation of measures must comply with the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and it’s requirement for full and proper consideration of all relevant matters to develop proportionate measures to address the realistic assessment of risks in the particular region.
These assessments would need to assess the rate of new remnant creation and clearly identify past remnant creation so the rate of clearing can be seen in the context of total flux, over time.
And the veg mapping process must be properly funded and subject to fully transparent assessment and consultation with forest owner prior to completion of the map.
Nuffsaidfornow.