Makah Whaling AFF---BRAG LAB---NDI
2014
1AC
Advantage
‘Our opponents would have us abandon this [whaling] part of our culture and restrict
it to a museum. To us this means a dead culture. We are trying to maintain a living
culture. We can only hope that those whose opposition is most vicious will be able to
recognize their ethnocentrism – subordinating our culture to theirs’ – the Makah Tribal
Council.
In response to the whale hunt in 1999,
The Makah received heaps of hate mail, harassments in restaurants and on ferries,¶ and even death
threats. Internet forums regularly carried vehement anti-Makah or anti-Indian postings, equating the
Indians with drunken welfare cheats . Local and¶ regional newspapers (for instance the Peninsula Daily News, the
Seattle Times, the¶ Seattle Post-Intelligencer) and radio and TV stations were deluged with letters, phone¶ calls, e-mails
and faxes generally opposing the hunt. There was talk of the ‘Makah’s¶ vicious, sick behavior’ , the
‘senseless massacre of a beautiful, peaceful creature’, the¶ ‘cold-blooded murder of a magnificent,
gentle and trusting animal’, ‘barbaric activity ’,¶ ‘carnage’, ‘horrible ordeal’, ‘a thoroughly arcane and disgusting
tradition’ or simply¶ ‘evil’. Someone referred to the ‘Makah whale killing atrocities’.31 Many messages were¶ laced with
hateful, ethnocentric or racist remarks (Erikson 1999:560). A man wanted¶ to apply for ‘a license to kill
Indians’ so that he could restore his forefathers’ tradition ¶ (ibid.:563). The discourse had turned ugly. Bumper
stickers with the slogan ‘Save a¶ Whale, Kill an Indian’ became popular . One protestor carried a banner reading
‘Save¶ a Whale, Harpoon a Makah!’ Whilst under siege of anti-whalers, a Makah carried a¶ sign with the text ‘Go Home Eco-Colonialists.’
Responding to the commotion after the¶ successful hunt, tribal
council Chairman Ben Johnson said: ‘We recognize that
because¶ of differences in cultural values and knowledge many people do not understand our need¶ to
continue with the tradition of whale hunting, thus creating a conflict between them¶ and the Makah.’32¶
In the wake of the environmental and animal rights groups’ opinion, many remarks¶ were made as regards the validity of
reviving tradition, especially in the days following¶ the successful hunt. Some dismissed it as ‘pure bunk,’ others made
deriding comparisons.¶ Someone said that ‘any culture that regains its pride by killing is, at best, primitive’.33¶
Another wrote: ‘These peoples want to rekindle their traditional way of life by killing an¶ animal that has
twice the mental capacity they have. These idiots need to use what little¶ brains they have to do
something productive besides getting drunk and spending federal¶ funds to live on’ (quoted in Erikson
1999:563). In a letter to the editor of theSeattle Times,¶ a woman declared: ‘The white man used to kill Indians and give them
smallpox-infected¶ blankets. Is this a tradition we should return to?’34 In the same newspaper, a couple stated¶
‘Natives were often referred to as “savages,” and it seems little has changed’ (quoted in¶ Dougherty 2001).
‘What does it matter if tradition is killing indigenous people in the¶ name of white culture or killing
whales in the name of Makah culture? The mind-set¶ is the same, only the victims differ,’ wrote a woman to
the Peninsula Daily News.¶ 35 A¶ reader of the Seattle Post-Intelligencersent a letter to the editor, reading: ‘The excuse¶ of “tradition” does not
justify this act. Not all “traditions” are appropriate behavior. It is¶ sad that a once proud group of people have lost so much
heritage, pride and self-respect¶ that they actually believe killing an intelligent, warm-blooded creature will some how¶ make them more
“Indian.”’36 Another reader volunteered the following: ‘If the Makah¶ tribe wants to embrace their traditions, they should: give up welfare,
(they got whale¶ blubber – who needs money?); give up modern medicine (they got a tribal medicine¶ man – forget the antibiotics and let him
cure their tribe with chants!) and by all means,¶ cut off their electricity and running water. Traditionally, they did not have these luxuries [sic].
Also, take those Nikes off those Makah kids and put them back in their traditional¶ moccassins [sic]!’37 ‘Many traditions become antiquated,
irresponsible and outright¶ wrong,’ a woman submitted.38 On
radio talk shows, statements like ‘white people¶ should
renew their tradition of killing Indians’ could be heard.39 Examples of traditions¶ that should not be revitalized abounded,
including cannibalism, human sacrifice, widow¶ burning, foot binding, genital mutilation, head hunting and scalping. A typical example¶ is from
a letter to the editor of theSeattle Post-Intelligencer, stating: ‘Indeed, an authentic¶ cultural revival would require the resurrection of intertribal warfare, slavery and the¶ occasional human sacrifice. So why do they insist on whaling, but not launching a return¶ to these other
practices that also defined them as a people? ::: It’s no wonder the Makah¶ still feel justified in considering whales their property to sacrifice as
they once did their¶ slaves.’40
Rob van Ginkel, University of Amsterdam, “The Makah Whale Hunt and Leviathan’s Death:
Reinventing Tradition and Disputing Authenticity in the Age of Modernity” //RJ
The same ethnocentric backlash to indigenous cultures in the status quo started in the
1700’s, when Vitus Bering and James Cook were introduced to the Makah tribe. In the
face of colonization, the Makah’s ability to whale and trade with powerful Eurasian
countries stood as a symbol of autonomy and resistance against cultural absorption.
However, animal rights activists suppressed the rich indigenous culture of the Makah
under the guise of “whale protection” under false legal pretenses while ignoring
commercialization’s devastating effects on the whale population. The Makah’s
indigenous environmental spirituality offers an cultural alternative to environmental
managerialism and colonial systems of thought.
The Pluralism Project 06 (Harvard University, “Makah Whaling, WA (Makah) (2006)”,
http://pluralism.org/reports/view/131, accessed 7/13/14 //RJ)
When explorers, Vitus Bering and James Cook were first introduced to the Makah community in the late
18th century, they immediately recognized its potential as an extremely lucrative trading partner. The
Makah are avid fishermen and whalers and the Europeans began trading copper for whale oil and bone
as soon as they came into contact. For these explorers, the Makah were an incredible and valued
resource, one whose goods they traded with nations as powerful and distant as Russia and China. This
interaction was also beneficial for the Makah, for whom whaling had been a central cultural practice as
long as the community had existed, who used the trade to protect the land they inhabited from
European settlement and to protect the political authority of their community. Whaling was the very
first point of negotiation between European colonizers and the Makah, one commemorated in the
original Treaty of Neah Bay, written and signed in 1885 .¶ It is entirely appropriate that the Makah be distinguished in the United
States' jurisprudence by their ability to whale, for indeed, much of the community's cultural and spiritual coherence comes
from the long tradition of whaling. From both oral and archeological evidence, it is clear that the Makah have been
hunting whales for at least 2,000 years. As the Makah community website puts it, " More than anything else, whaling
represents the spiritual and technological preparedness of the Makah people and the wealth of
culture. " For whaling, as many sacred practices of Native communities, is significant in many ways at
once. Whales, for instance, are physically sustentative for the Makah. One whale can feed an entire village, not only for one
community-wide feast or potlach, but for many weeks. Furthermore, the Makah use the oil for burning, bone
for tools and carving, sinew and gut for storage.¶ The practice of hunting, slaughtering, and preparing whales for these purposes are also
spiritually sustaining. Men going on hunts prepare for years, ensuring that they are physically and spiritually
purified. The fasting, training, bathing, and prayer involved in this preparation have been carried on even
in recent years, embodying a traditional continuity between the past and present.¶ In the early 1900's
the Makah community gradually stopped whaling. There are many explanations for this, most of them
having to do with increasing poverty and a subsequent focus on physical survival and thus a decreasing
interest in “religious” rituals, the frequent and often unlawful discouragement by the U.S. government,
and the rapid decline in whale populations in the Neah Bay area owing to American, European, and
Japanese commercial whaling. The latter reason, the population loss, led the U.S. to help establish the IWC (International Whaling Commission)
to regulate global, commercial whaling, and to put the Grey Whale on the Endangered Species List in 1969. The Makah did not hunt while the
Grey Whale was classified this way, despite their theoretical legal ability to do so, as specified in the Fish
and Wildlife Service Secretarial Order #3206 sections 3c and 4.¶ When, in 1994, the Grey Whale was
taken off the Endangered Species list, because of a very healthy recovery of the population to nearly
30,000, the Makah tribe notified government authorities of their interest and intention in resuming
traditional whale hunts.¶ The decision to resume the practice of this tradition was a major, positive step
for the Makah community, which had, for many years, been suffering from poverty, unemployment,
and cultural dislocation. Not only did it connect Makah youth, who had never personally experienced a
whale hunt, to the elders, who were the last living links to this central cultural and spiritual event, but it
became a ideologically defining issue for the community. Again, the tradition of whaling would be a
central aspect of survival for the Makah. For, whereas whaling had originally been a practice which
demonstrated the community's determination to survive physically, it was now a practice which
demonstrated its determination to maintain the right to cultural and religious autonomy. In both cases
communal identity and survival were clearly at stake. In this sense, the resumption of this ancient tradition is explained by the
necessity of the community to respond to threats to the independence and distinctiveness of their way of life. ¶ Current Legal Battle¶ The tribe, working
in conjunction with the US government and the political organizations which regulate international
whaling, primarily the IWC, drafted a management plan to ensure that the whaling that would take
place be completely legal. The primary grounds upon which the collective parties established this legal claim to hunt was not based on the Treaty of
Neah Bay, but on provisions in the IWC and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) policy designed to allow an "aboriginal subsistence" quota of
whales to be taken by the tribe. The quota established for the Makah is shared with the Chukotka natives of far eastern Russia. The
Makah were
granted 4 gray whales per year, and the Chukotka, 120. The quota was granted to the tribes in conjunction because the tribes are
hunting from the same stock. By conforming to these policy changes, the Makah willingly revised many of the very
central features of the traditional hunt, including where they could hunt, how many "strikes" (defined as
successful or unsuccessful strikes of whales by the hunters' harpoons) they were allowed, the role of the
captain of the whale hunt, and many others. These were all provisions established because of the decline of the grey whale population,
which had nothing to do with traditional Makah hunting. ¶ In 1999, after receiving approval from the United States government and the IWC, the Makah had its first
whale hunt in decades. Robert Sullivan, a journalist, recorded the event in his popular book, A Whale Hunt. Sullivan's
work documented not
only the disciplined work of the crew to prepare themselves properly, according to both traditional and
contemporary judicial codes, but also the immense, highly controversial, and very aggressive opposition
mounted against the Makah's hunt by animal rights organizations.¶ The Opposition¶ Since the beginning of the
1999 hunt, opposition to the Makah tradition has been led by animal rights groups like the the Sea
Shepard, the Humane Society of the United States, the Cetacean Society International and the West
Coast Anti-Whaling Society. As quite diligently outlined by the National Council for Science and the Environment, the specific reasons
for opposition are typically centered around the idea that whales are more highly intelligent mammals
and thus ought not be killed, that the Makah seek to profit from whaling, that allowing the Makah to
hunt has set a legal precedent that might allow countries like Japan and Norway to pursue the right to
hunt Grey Whales commercially, that the Makah, because of their temporary hiatus from whaling have
lost the right to hunt specified in the Treaty of Neah Bay, or that because the IWC has not sanctioned
the hunt specifically, that the hunt is illegal.¶ As the NCSE article elaborates, many of these arguments are either
legally unfounded, or represent extra-legal concerns. Generally speaking, none of the opposition
groups express understanding of the culturally central role whaling has in the Makah community or
even attempt to see the issue through the lens of religious freedom. Furthermore, their complaints that the
Makah community is threatening the environmental integrity of the area do not mention the costly
efforts of that community to research declining deer and elk populations, to remove a dam harmful to
local fish, to invest in alternative 'wave energy', to work against toxins in local water, or to restore
lagging salmon populations, all of which have been initiated in the last two years.¶ The limited
perspective of these groups, so absolutely focused on the well-being of the whales, is not one
adopted by more major environmental organizations like Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society,
neither of which has opposed the Makah whale hunt. ¶ The Future of the Hunt¶ In July 2004 the 9th District Court of
Appeals upheld the Makah treaty rights to take whales, however the court ruled with plaintiffs (organizations
like the Humane Society, the Cetacean Society, and the West-Coast Anti-Whaling society) by agreeing that the Environmental
Assessment prepared by the Makah and the United States government in 1994, after the California Grey
Whale had been taken off the Endangered Species list, did not take into account some more subtle
threats the Makah hunt could have on the Grey Whale population. Specifically, the suit claims that the whales in Neah Bay are
a sub-grouping of the larger, migrating Grey Whale population. It is unknown how this sub-group is established and how or if it is refilled by whales of the migrating
population, if its members are lost. The
judge in the case, though he admitted that there was significant evidence
suggesting that the Neah Bay group is indeed refreshed by the larger population, maintained that the
Environmental Assessment did not take into account this and other details. The ruling invalidates the original EA and
creates an injunction against further Makah hunting until a new Environmental Assessment can be drafted. ¶ Beyond this, the Makah must also
reapply for an exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) drafted in 1972 in an effort
to curb the disastrous effects of over-fishing around the United States. The Makah and the United States
argued in the 2004 decision that they were already exempted from the restrictions on hunting in the
act, because of sub-section 1372(a)(2), which states that parties whose right to hunt is protected when
it is "expressly provided for by an international treaty [established]...before the effective date [of the MMPA]." And
though the Makah do have an agreement with the IWC and the US government that grants them a 4 whale per two year quota, it does not pre-date the MMPA. In
February 2005, the Makah applied for an exemption from MMPA, which the NOAA's National Marine
Fisheries Service is at the currently reviewing at the time of this updating (Summer, 2006), in
conjunction with a reissued E nvironmental I mpact S urvey, and will begin a formal rule making process. The
Makah could also, but have not yet, argued that the 1885 Treaty of Neah Bay fulfilled the MMPA's exemption,
largely because of the rather troublesome latter half of the most relevant clause in that treaty: " The
right of taking fish and of whaling or sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further
secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the United States ." Since all citizens of the United States do not,
currently, have the right to receive this kind of exemption from the MMPA, neither do the Makah, strictly speaking. ¶ This case demonstrates the
absence of and need for consideration of tribal cultural preservation in a wide range of U.S. federal
policy governing issues from treaty rights to the stewardship of the nation's environmental resources. It
also demonstrates that though U.S. environmental policy can often be used as an umbrella of protection for
tribal claims it remains a rather problematic protection. And finally, it is a clear example of cultural and
political autonomy lost to a community once it has ceased to be an economic beneficiary of the United
States government.
The narrative of Makah whaling is emblematic of a larger trend of American cultural
imposition on indigenous peoples. For over 1500 years, the Makah tribe depended on
the ocean as a source of sustenance, and whaling was integral to their cultural
connection to the ocean – whaling was much more than a hobby, it represented a
religious unification of the tribe and a way of life. Using treaties and legal rulings as a
tool of conquest, the United States dictated by legislative fiat the totality of Makah
affairs.
Stevens 12 (Jeremy, American Indian Law Journal, “OF WHALING, JUDICIAL FIATS, TREATIES AND
INDIANS: THE MAKAH SAGA CONTINUES”, Volume 1, Issue 1 – Fall 2012, pg 1-3 //RJ)
“[O]ur treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall
in our democratic faith. Here, as in other parts of the world, the undermining of that faith begins with the
glorification of ‘expert administrators’ whose power-drives are always accompanied by soft music
about¶ ‘the withering away of the state’ or the ultimate ‘liquidation’¶ of this or that bureau.”3¶ At the
northwestern-most corner of the continental United States, on a 27,000 square acre reservation, reside
the Makah.4 Currently the only group of the Nuu-chah- nulth people within the realm of the United States of America,5 the Makah once exerted dominion
over a territory that consisted of all “that portion of the extreme northwest part of Washington Territory . . . between Flattery Rocks on the Pacific coast, fifteen
miles south from Cape Flattery, and the Hoko [R]iver . . . eastward from the cape on the Strait of [Juan de] Fuca.”6 The Makah also claimed Tatoosh Island, and
indeed still today retain Tatoosh Island and the cluster of land masses which the appellation has come to represent.7 But the
whole of the Makah
ancestral lands “is of a mountainous character, and is the termination of the Olympic range, [covered
with] an almost impenetrable forest.”8 The inhospitable climate–the winds, the rains, the rocky crags,
the clay dirt and sandstone, and the occasional boulder of granite–is not suitable for cultivation. Owing
to the terrain and the climate, the Makah engaged in very limited amounts of agriculture, cultivating
potatoes “at a hill on Flattery rocks”9 and picking berries, naturally resident to the terrain. It is thus not
difficult to understand that the Makah were primarily “a seafaring people who spent their lives either
on the water or close to the shore;”10 sprinkled with the occasional tuber, nut, berry or sea fowl,
most of the Makah “subsistence came from the sea where they fished for salmon, halibut and other
fish, and hunted for whale and seal .”11 But paramount to the Makah of all the fecund ocean’s largesse
was the California Gray Whale.12 As the Makah themselves assert, whale hunting is the “symbolic
heart” of their culture. 13¶ And the Makah have been hunting whales for 1,500 years.14 Makah religion in fact
instructs that Thunderbird, a “flying wolflike god, delivered a whale to their shores to save them from
starvation. ”15 For at least 3,000 years since, the “gray whales have been sacred icons in the petroglyphs,
jewelry, art, carvings, songs, and dances”16 of the Makah. Whaling has not only been a source of
subsistence to the Makah as they have learned to survive–thrive, even, before westward expansion
squeezed them onto their current reservation–atop their clump of clay, rock, and dirt–whaling has been
“an expression of religious faith and community cohesion.”17 Nowhere else is this reverence, this sense
of cultural inter-dependence, more illustrated than in the Treaty of¶ Neah Bay.18¶ The Treaty of Neah
Bay is the constitutionally binding source of federal plenary authority and dominion over the Makah
Indians –the exercise of the Indian Commerce clause which grants the congressional right to dictate by
legislative fiat the totality of Makah affairs. Effectuated in 1855, it is but one of the “eleven different treaties,
each with several different tribes”19 produced by Governor Isaac Stevens.20¶ Congress’ chosen method
of opening up vast swaths of Pacific Northwest land for white westward expansion was through the
negotiation of treaties, as an instrument of conquest. 21 And to clear the way for white settlement onto
Indian lands, to accommodate the increasing flow of American settlers pouring into the lowlands of
Puget Sound and the river valleys north of the Columbia River, Governor Isaac Stevens was tasked with
inducing the Indians of the area to move “voluntarily”22 onto reservations. Indeed, Governor Stevens was well-suited for
the undertaking. He recognized in the Makah not much concern for their land (save for their village, burial
sites, and other sundry locations), but recognized great concern for “their marine hunting and fishing
rights.”23 The Governor therefore reassured the Makah that the United States government did not
“intend to stop them from marine hunting and fishing but in fact would help them to develop these
pursuits.” 24 But Governor Stevens did not speak the Makah’s language, nor did the Makah representatives speak English. Instead, the Treaty of Neah Bay was
negotiated in English and an interpreter translated English into “Chinook Jargon” which then a member of the Clallum Tribe translated into Makah: English into
Chinook into Makah, and back.25 Nevertheless, Governor Stevens was sufficiently intuitive and well enough informed to recognize the primacy of the whale. But in
Anderson v. Evans,32 the
Ninth Circuit abrogated that right, and did so through applying an eminently improper
analytical framework of its own making.33 Part I of this article will chart the unhappy sequence of
events leading up to the Anderson decision as the Makah sought–and continue to seek today–to reestablish their long- customary and treaty-reserved practice of whaling. Next, this article will consider the canons of United
States-Indian treaty interpretation relevant to the Anderson court’s failings. Included in this proposition is identifying the source of federal power over Indians,
identifying
the source of state power over Indians, and identifying what are referred to as the state
conservation necessity test and the federal weight and consideration test. As each appellation suggests,
the former is used to assess the effects a state’s regulation imposes upon an Indian treaty-reserved right
while the latter is used to assess the effects a federal regulation imposes upon an Indian treaty- reserved
right. This article will then address in Part III why the Anderson decision was incorrectly decided and in conclusion, this article will present the current state of
the Makah’s efforts to resume their treaty-reserved right of “whaling or sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and stations”34 in exercise of their treaty right to
do so.
The United States’ imposition of sovereign domination and imperialism onto the
Makah stems from the colonial logic of expansion – Western exceptionalism is
embodied through the death of Makah culture and the sacred practice of whale
hunting, stemming from a larger racist political system.
Tanner 9 (Charles Jr., Institute for Research and Education for Human Rights, “Keeping our Word:
Indigenous Sovereignty and Treaty Rights”, https://www.irehr.org/issue-areas/treaty-rights-and-tribalsovereignty/319-keeping-our-word-indigenous-sovereignty-and-treaty-rights //RJ)
The struggle for equality in the United States is most identified with the heroic battles of the Civil Rights
Movement. As African Americans fought for equal protection under the law and full participation in
society, Americans and people around the world were inspired. Our most noble pursuits have been
inspired by the genuine call to equal rights and justice for all: the struggle for women’s equality, the
stand against white nationalists and anti-Semites, the battle for full Constitutional rights for people of all
sexual orientations, the voices that rose against the persecution of Arabs and Muslims after the attacks
of September 11, 2001, the fight for immigrant rights, and many more.¶ ¶ ¶ Alongside these movements
for equal rights under U.S. law, the indigenous peoples of the continent have waged a 500 year
struggle for equality between nations . While civil rights activists have worked for equal treatment under our laws and in our institutions and civil society, the
indigenous struggle for self-determination has sought a distinct goal: to secure the inherent rights of the
continent’s original inhabitants to maintain their land and resource base, their cultures and their
political sovereignty.¶ Two concepts are important in understanding indigenous self-determination: tribal sovereignty and treaty rights. By understanding these ideas, and taking action together, Indians and
non-Indians can build communities in which all people are respected and their human rights upheld.¶ Tribal Sovereignty, a Right of Nations¶ The concept of "sovereignty" is not of
native origin. Rulers of ancient states claimed ultimate authority over their territories. In Europe the concept extends back to
the Roman Empire, the papal claim to universal power in medieval times, and the "divine right" of monarchs. The idea of "popular sovereignty" spurred the impulse
toward democracy that eventually pushed aside many crumbling monarchies.¶ Eons before European
contact, the indigenous peoples of the Americas routinely defined and enforced territorial boundaries.
These boundaries often included overlapping areas in which two or more tribes shared resources and
were understood by tribal members as relationships between both land and peoples.¶ However, the
concept of sovereignty is now commonly used to describe tribal rights and can help inform respectful
relations between non-indigenous and indigenous peoples. In this respect, sovereignty refers to a
collective body or government holding the ultimate political authority in a geographic area. The "sovereign" is
empowered to make collective decisions concerning group membership and economic practices; the choice of institutions and external relationships; and socio-cultural and other matters. Because this
concept has its origins in the history of states, it also has limitations when applied to tribal nations .
While it correctly conveys the political authority of tribes, it understates the importance of
understanding tribal sovereignty as an inherent right of indigenous communities to self-determination –
even when tribal institutions and practices look different than traditional American conceptions of
government.¶ Anti-Indian activists often claim that tribal sovereignty is an invention of the U.S. government, granted to tribes through legislation, executive order or court decree.¶ Nothing could be further from the
truth.¶ No act of the U.S. government ever gave, or justly took way, the right of indigenous peoples to
govern their lands and resources and the populations living in their territories. Tribes are, in fact, nations
– self-identified groups sharing cultural traditions and history in a common territory where they seek to
maintain collective self-determination. It is this history of living in their homelands and governing the life of the nation that created tribal sovereignty.¶ While it did
not create these rights, the U.S. government has long recognized inherent tribal sovereignty. Supreme Court
Chief Justice John Marshall expressed this in 1832 when he wrote that "Indian nations had always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining from their original natural rights, as the undisputed
possessors of the soil, from time immemorial." Marshall continued that Indian tribes "rank among those powers who are capable of making treaties." The "words ‘treaty’ and ‘nation’," he wrote, have been "applied…to Indians, as
we have applied them to other nations of the earth."[1] In
Marshall’s words, tribes are nations, just like England and the United States.¶
despite Marshall’s high-sounding words, the U.S. government has
never fully respected tribal sovereignty – an unfortunate legacy of its colonial origins . A cornerstone of
federal Indian law remains the so-called Discovery Doctrine, an 11th century papal "theory" by which
Christian states justified extending their reach into the lands of "heathens" and "infidels."[2] This doctrine was written into
While nationhood and sovereignty are facts of indigenous political existence, and
U.S. law in 1823 when John Marshall wrote:¶ The United States…have unequivocally acceded to that great and broad rule by which its civilized inhabitants now hold this country…They maintain, as all others have maintained, that
discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest…" (emphasis added)[3] ¶ Congress claims a "plenary power" over Indian nations that it has used to terminate tribes,
violate treaties and expropriate tribal lands. Under this assumed "power," Congress began seizing jurisdiction over "major crimes" on reservations in 1885 and, in the 1950s, terminated more than 100 tribes and imposed some
states’ laws on Indian Country.¶ Alongside the Marshall Court’s recognition of tribal political status, and a ban on extending state law into Indian Country, Marshall termed tribes "domestic dependent nations" whose relationship
with the United States "resembles that of a ward to his guardian." [4] The designation of tribes as "dependent" has since been used by the Supreme Court to strip tribal governments of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians and civil
jurisdiction over non-Indians on non-Indian owned property on reservations.[5] The Supreme Court continues to use the 1887 Allotment Act – a law that opened tribal lands to white settlement – to justify extending state
This legacy of colonial law and practice has placed serious obstacles in the path of
tribal self-determination . It undermines tribal efforts to protect tribal members from violence by nonIndians, defend Indian lands from damage by profit-seeking corporations and develop healthy
economies. Environmental racism persists as tribal peoples and lands face threats from ongoing and
past mining operations; destruction of habitat for species important to tribal sustenance and culture;
nuclear testing and storage; and threats to tribal water rights. Tribes continue to fight for the return of the remains of their ancestors and preserve
jurisdiction over Indian lands.[6]¶
important religious and cultural sites from destruction.¶ Despite such injustices, tribes continue to exercise and fight for political sovereignty. As a result of tribal sovereignty tribes work to manage and protect their natural
S.
citizens also benefit from tribal sovereignty when jobs are created by tribal enterprises and
governments or when the power inherent in tribal sovereignty is used to protect the environment. By
exercising tribal sovereignty, tribes have improved fisheries management in Washington State through
co-management with state agencies and engage in numerous habitat restoration projects with local
governments and non-Indian community members. Tribes exercising political sovereignty have been a
driving force in efforts to save collapsing salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest.¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ Keeping Our Word: Treaty Rights and Tribal Sovereignty¶
Treaty rights are inherent legal and moral rights held by indigenous nations. A treaty is a legal contract between sovereign nations.
European colonizers used treaties to legitimize the transfer of land from tribal peoples. Treaties were
also means of achieving peaceful relations and creating boundaries . Tribal leaders often saw treaties as bringing about multi-cultural unity and
relations of support and alliance.¶ Under the U.S. Constitution, the president can sign treaties with the advice and consent
of the U.S. Senate. Once approved by the Senate, Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution states that "[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme
law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."¶ By signing treaties with tribes, the
U.S. government recognized their existence as sovereign nations. This was stated clearly in 1979 when the Supreme Court explained that "A treaty,
including one between the United States and an Indian tribe, is essentially a contract between two sovereign nations." [7] ¶ Anti-Indian activists and politicians often
describe treaties as giving rights to Indian tribes. Likewise, they claim that treaty rights are "special rights"
and that Indians are "supercitizens" as a result of treaties.¶ Such ideas are simply wrong.¶ In reality, treaties reserved
rights long held by tribes. In exchange for land and other commitments tribes secured recognition of their status and a federal commitment to encroach no further on the rights made explicit and
resources and lands; develop their economies; defend their cultures and spiritual practices; hunt, fish and gather traditional foods and medicines; and promote the preservation of tribal languages, among other things. ¶ U.
implied in treaties. The idea of treaty rights as reserved rights was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1905 in U.S. v. Winans:¶ "[T]he treaty was not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them – a reservation
of those not granted …And the right was intended to be continuing against the United States and its grantees as well as against the State and its grantees." [8]¶ That is, treaties gave nothing to tribes, only to the U.S. government
It is important to recognize the
unequal context in which treaty-making occurred. The era of treaty-making– from the colonial period to
1871 – coincided with aggressive westward expansion by Americans, forced Indian removal and
repeated wars of aggression by the United States against indigenous peoples. While not all treaties
were signed under threat of forced removal and warfare, many were. Treaties were negotiated in
English and limited inter-tribal languages, a fact used to the advantage of U.S. treaty negotiators.[9] Treaties were
and its citizens. By entering into treaties the United States obtained the land and resource base that have allowed it to become the wealthiest society on earth.¶
sometimes altered by the Senate without tribal approval and the United States often used treaties to "divide and conquer" tribes.[10] White settlers also repeatedly rushed into Indian Country, with the support of the U.S. military,
The unequal relationship between tribes and the U.S. government
during treaty-making is recognized by the Supreme Court . As a result of this inequality and the federal
"trust" obligation to act in the interests of tribes, the Court has developed "canons of construction" used
to interpret treaty cases. These canons hold that treaties should be interpreted as they would have been understood
by tribes; that ambiguities in treaty language be interpreted liberally in support of tribes; and that
treaties must be liberally interpreted in favor of tribes. While these rules have produced favorable rulings for tribes, courts have also ignored them in order to rule
in express violation of treaties – some of the continent’s first "illegal aliens."¶
While the United States has legal and moral obligations to uphold treaty rights, treaty
violations by federal and state governments and U.S. citizens have been frequent. In part, these violations
stem from the fact that a legacy of colonialism continues to influence U.S. relations with Indian
tribes. [11] In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903) the Supreme Court described a congressional plenary power over tribes that can be used to violate treaties:¶ "Plenary authority over the
tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning, and the power has
always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the
government…The power exists to abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty."[12]¶ The Court ruled that Congress can abrogate
agreements with tribes even when doing so is a result of fraud and misrepresentation and takes place without tribal consent. ¶ Based on Lone Wolf and cases like it, the
Supreme Court has expanded the "legal" means used to violate treaties. While earlier cases required "explicit statutory language" to rule that a
treaty had been abrogated, in U.S. v Dion the Court ruled that Congressional abrogation can be inferred if there is evidence
that Congress "considered the conflict between its intended action…and an Indian treaty," and then
chose to resolve the "conflict by abrogating the treaty."[13] While treaty violations are often considered wrongs committed in the distant past, the U.S.
government has created both congressional and judicial mechanisms for continuing to violate treaties
with indigenous nations .¶ Not surprisingly, treaties continue to be violated by federal and state governments and
U.S. citizens. Treaties can be abrogated outright, as in U.S. v Dion, or violated when federal laws are imposed on tribes and interfere with the exercise of treaty-reserved rights. The latter
occurred when the 9th Circuit Appeals Court imposed the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) on
the Makah nation despite the tribe’s treaty-reserved right to hunt whales. When five Makah men, frustrated with the pace of federal
permitting under the MMPA, hunted a gray whale in 2007, the federal government compounded this violation by arresting them . The
federal government has also allotted lands in express violation of treaty terms (1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Lakota) and
against tribes or limit tribal rights.¶
assumed control of lands never ceded by treaty (1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley with the Western Shoshone).[14]
Colonialism creates social hierarchies and economic exploitation, which steals the
subjectivity of natives through cultural superiority, xenophobia, and control which
inflicts incessant structural violence against the indigenous body. The logic of
coloniality is also expressed outward via indirect empire, when United States spreads
trade, pop culture, and neoliberalism through “soft power”, which crushes every
subaltern and assimilates it into the dominant American ideology.
Sciullo 08 (Nick J., “A Whale of a Tale: Post-Colonialism, Critical Theory, And Decontruction: Revisiting
the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Through a Socio-Legal Perspective”,
HEINOnline //RJ)
Post-colonialism¶ The arrival of non-Indians here led to multiple tragedies that have continued long after the non-Indians should have known
better, and these clashes have called forth from many Indian people and tribes so multifarious an array of creative transfor- mations of
themselves that no single book, and not even a multi- volume set of books, could chronicle them all."¶ No
alleged effect of
colonization evokes greater moral indigna- tion or fretful nostalgia than fragmentation. Colonialism
breaks things. It shatters an imagined wholeness. Colonialism's will to power creates binaries where a
unified field and healthy singularity of cultural purpose once existed. The self of the colonizer explodes
a native cultural solidarity, producing the spiritual con- fusion, psychic wounding, and economic
exploitation of a new and dominated other. Colonization imposes evil, fear, and igno- rance on the
innocent native landscape.97¶ The post-colonialism debate is very much about robbery-a spiritual theft
of subjectivity that manifests itself through practices of cultural superiority, xenophobia, and the
oppressor's lack of humynity. What was once whole, striated, expansive and indefinite is now
smoothed by a larger discourse of dominance. The develop- ment of colonialism and its refinements
and rebirths have perpetu- ated a psychology of control that has injured, actually and metaphorically,
indigenous populations .¶ Post-colonial critiques are often multifaceted, but all center on a rejection of imperialism and/or a rejection
of the blanket con- cept of "Enlightenment Thinking."" Post-colonial critiques have also been termed "radical anti-imperialism" by Patrick
Callahan.99The argument that the United States has or is an empire is hotly debated, mostly because parties focus on indicia of formal empire-control over cultures, sovereignties, economic strength, etc. To
be sure, there is a compelling case to be made that
the United States is an empire when considering its relationship to the indige- nous peoples of the
United States. With the recent events of Sep- tember 11, 2001 deployed as a call for a new imperialism,
the post- colonialism critique is relevant to today's political and philosophi- cal discourses. 00 However,
perhaps the most palpable example of the United States' empire is indirect empire.'0 ' Indirect empire
often arises out of advantages in international trade, popular culture indoctrination, and the spread of a
country's commercial interests and objectives-Starbucks, McDonalds, etc. Both types of empire are
serious problems for subalterns of all varieties.10 2¶ These "serious" problems pose serious threats to
the existence of the Makah.'os There is clearly a war of words over the appropri- ateness of whaling.
However, what is particularly stressing is the threat to Makah identity. Anti-whaling arguments are
made in a manner that challenges the subjectivity of the Makah by debasing various cultural claims
about the relationship between the Makah and whaling .' 0 4 The denial of subjectivity is the most
unfortunate philosophical turn toward destruction.¶ Post-colonial critiques often rely on historical and
sociological analysis, paying special attention to the impacts of international re- lations not only on
nation-states and large bodies, but also on the individual.o Here post-colonial critiques pick up where
standard deconstruction fails. The Makah have a long history of contact with the forces of colonization
through the nineteenth century.1 0 6 Because post-colonial critiques involve a critique of imperialism, they are particularly
effective tools in discussions of international¶ relations and international law. They also offer
important insights in the analysis of indigenous populations.¶ There is a long history of U.S. imperialism
and a clear exercise of cultural genocide with respect to the United States' indige- nous populations. Even
though Sumner Wells, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Undersecretary of State, famously declared "the age of imperialism is ended," 0 that notion
has not resonated with the colonized within the United States' borders. The
Makah have been no exception to the
deplorable treatment of indigenous peo- ple by the U.S. government.'09 The ban on whaling is not a
policy solely against the Makah, it is the support of a convention that desires to ban whaling across
the globe, denying the cultural and historic practices of many people . This is an example of international relations no longer being about East versus West, but at a deeper level being about Michael Hardt
and Antonio Negri's no- tions of empire.'1 o Although this Article focuses largely on the Makah,
arguments could be made that incorporate post-colonial criticisms as they relate to a number of other
countries and cultures.¶ Imperialism is a particularly naughty tactic that reinforces itself through the
oppressive cycle. Once a country is in, it is hard to get out."' Imagine indigenous peoples in the United States re-¶
jecting all federal government assistance or imagine Venezuela not shipping oil to North America and
Europe. Those situations are simply not feasible in a practical sense. However, imperialism is inherently unstable .' 12 The
risk of constant social rebellion is a real threat to the established order."' Because the goal of imperi- alism is
dominance, individuals are always placed in a disadvanta- geous position against the system. Furthermore, the United States and
its leadership enjoy making declarations that the United States has broken free of the Western world's
colonial traditions, reifyingthe goodness of the system being critiqued. Richard Nixon, during a campaign
speech, famously declared, "For the first time in history we have shown independence of Anglo-French
policies toward Asia and Africa which seemed to us to reflect the colonial tradition. That declaration of
independence has had an electrifying effect throughout the world.""' This assertion would prove to be wrong in the
years to come and does not take into account the continued domestic imperialism practiced against indigenous people of the United States.¶
What can whaling countries do? They might resume whaling temporarily, knowing that they might be
able to whale for at least a short time before pressure from other countries becomes too great. That
would never solve anything and would only give whal- ing countries a small glimpse at their previous
way of life. As men- tioned previously, the cultural exemption debate tops the list of post-colonial critiques.
This Article, however, is more about the need to open up the space for post-colonial critique than it is to define the specifics of place.¶ The
cultural exemption rests on the IWC's use of the term "subsistence whaling," which is "whaling, for purposes of local ab- original consumption
carried out by or on behalf of aboriginal, in- digenous or native peoples who share strong community, familial, social and cultural ties related to
a continuing traditional depen- dence on whaling and on the use ofwhales.""' The exemption is a logical compromise designed to promote a
better understanding of different cultures. It is an attempt to be responsive to the needs of societies and to recognize many of the constituent
parts of cul- ture."'6 It provides some hope. Geert Hofstede, one of the preem- inent sociologists in the field of intercultural relations, found
culture to be "the collective programming of the mind which dis- tinguishes one hum[y]n group from another... . Culture is to a hum[y]n
collectivity what personality is to an individual.""' Whal- ing is a programmed activity,1 18 a characteristic of certain cultures, similar to how
certain jobs are characteristic of different regions of the United States-farming in the Midwest, for example.
Under the framework of colonialism, the racialized, exploited, annihilated other is
violently expelled from political spaces; indigenous and sub-ontological cultures are
automatically assumed to be inferior, incessantly creating a death ethics of war that
results in genocide.
Maldonado-Torres 8 (Nelson, Against War: Views from the Underside of Modernity, p.
217-21)
what happened in the Americas was a transformation and
naturalization of the non-ethics of war—which represented a sort of exception to the ethics that
regulate normal conduct in Christian countries—into a more stable and long-standing reality of
damnation, and that this epistemic and material shift occurred in the colony. Damnation, life in hell, is
colonialism: a reality characterized by the naturalization of war by means of the naturalization of
slavery, now justified in relation to the very constitution of people and no longer solely or principally to
their faith or belief. That human beings become slaves when they are vanquished in a war translates in
the Americas into the suspicion that the conq uered people, and then non-European peoples in general, are constitutively
inferior and that therefore they should assume a position of slavery and serfdom . Later on, this idea would be solidified
with respect to the slavery of African peoples, achieving stability up to the present with the tragic reality of different forms of racism. Through this process, what looked like a
"state of exception" in the colonies became the rule in the modern world . However, deviating from Giorgio Agarnben's
diagnosis, one must say that the colony--long before the concentration camp and the Nazi politics of
extermination--served as the testing ground for the limits and possibilities of modernity, thereby
revealing its darkest secrets." It is race, the coloniality of power, and its concomitant Eurocentrism (and not
only national socialisms or forms of fascism) that allow the "state of exception" to continue to define ordinary relations in
this, our so-called postmodern world. ¶ Race emerges within a permanent state of exception where forms of behavior that are
legitimate in war become a natural part of the ordinary way of life . In that world, an otherwise extraordinary
affair becomes the norm and living in it requires extraordinary effort." In the racial/ colonial world, the
"hell" of war becomes a condition that defines the reality of racialized selves , which Fanon referred to as the damnes de la
Dussel, Quijano, and Wynter lead us to the understanding that
terre (condemned of the earth). The damne (condemned) is a subject who exists in a permanent "hell," and as such, this figure serves as the main referent or liminal other that guarantees the
continued affirmation of modernity as a paradigm of war. The hell of the condemned is not defined by the alienation of colonized productive forces, but rather signals the dispensability of
The racialized subject is ultimately a dispensable
source of value, and exploitation is conceived in this context as due torture, and not solely as the
extraction of surplus value. Moreover, it is this very same conception that gives rise to the particular erotic dynamics that characterize the relation between the master
and its slaves or racialized workers. The condemned, in short, inhabit a context in which the confrontation with death
and murder is ordinary . Their "hell" is not simply "other people," as Sartre would have put it-at least at
one point - but rather racist perceptions that are responsible for the suspension of ethical behavior
toward peoples at the bottom of the color line. Through racial conceptions that became central to the modern self, modernity and coloniality produced a
racialized subjects, that is, the idea that the world would be fundamentally better without them.
permanent state of war that racialized and colonized subjects cannot evade or escape. ¶ The modern function of race and the coloniality of power, I am suggesting here, can be understood as
This non-ethics included the practices of eliminating and
enslaving certain subjects-for example, indigenous and black-as part of the enterprise of colonization.
a radicalization and naturalization of the non-ethics of war in colonialism."
From here one could as well refer to them as the death ethics of war. War, however, is not only about
killing or enslaving; it also includes a particular treatment of sexuality and femininity: rape. Coloniality is
an order of things that places people of color within the murderous and rapist view of a vigilant ego,
and the primary targets of this rape are women. But men of color are also seen through these lenses
and feminized, to become fundamentally penetrable subjects for the ego conquiro . Racial- ization functions through
gender and sex, and the ego conquiro is thereby constitutively a phallic ego as well." Dussel. who presents this thesis of the phallic character of the ego cogito, also makes links, albeit
indirectly, with the reality of war. ¶ And thus, in the beginning of modernity, before Descartes discovered ... a terrifying anthropological dualism in Europe, the Spanish conquistadors arrived in
America. The phallic conception of the European-medieval world is now added to the forms of submission of the vanquished Indians. "Males," Bartolome de las Casas writes, are reduced
through "the hardest, most horrible, and harshest serfdom"; but this only occurs with those who have remained alive, because many of them have died; however, "in war typically they only
And
since their bodies have been conceived of as inherently inferior or violent, they must be constantly
subdued or civilized, which requires renewed acts of conquest and colonization. The survivors continue to live in a world
leave alive young men (mozos) and women.""5 The indigenous people who survive the massacre or are left alive have to contend with a world that considers them to be dispensable.
defined by war, and this situation is peculiar in the case of women. AsT. Denean Sharpley-Whiting and Renee T, White put it in the preface to their anthology Spoils oJ War: Women oJ Color,
Cultures, and Revolutions: A sexist and/or racist patriarchal culture and order posts and attempts to maintain, through violent acts of force if necessary, the subjugation and inferiority of
women of color. As Joy James notes, "its explicit, general premise constructs a conceptual framework of male [and/or white] as normative in order to enforce a politicaljracial, economic,
cultural. sexual] and intellectual mandate of male [and/or white] as superior." The warfront has always been a "feminized" and "colored" space for women of color. Their experiences and
perceptions of war, conA ict, resistance, and struggle emerge from their specific racial-ethnic and gendered locations ... Inter arma silent leges: in time of war the law is silent," Walzer notes.
Thus, this volume operates from the premise that war has been and is presently in our midst.” The links between war, conquest, and the exploitation of women's bodies are hardly accidental.
In his study of war and gender, Joshua Goldstein argues that conquest usually proceeds through an extension of the rape and exploitation of women in wartime." He argues that to understand
conquest, one needs to examine: I) male sexuality as a cause of aggression; 2) the feminization of enemies as symbolic domination; and 3) dependence on the exploitation of women's labor-
that these three elements came together in a powerful way in the idea of race
that began to emerge in the conquest and colonization of the Americas. My second point is that through
the idea of race, these elements exceed the activity of conquest and come to define what from that
point on passes as the idea of a "normal" world. As a result, the phenomenology of a racial context
resembles, if it is not fundamentally identical to, the phenomenology of war and conquest. Racism posits
its targets as racialized and sexualized subjects that, once vanquished, are said to be inherently servile
and whose bodies come to form part of an economy of sexual abuse, exploitation, and control. The coloniality
of power cannot be fully understood without reference to the transformation and naturalization of war and conquest in modern times. ¶ Hellish existence in the
colonial world carries with it both the racial and the gendered aspects of the naturalization of the nonethics of war. " Killability" and "rapeability" are inscribed into the images of colonial bodies and deeply
mark their ordinary existence . Lacking real authority, colonized men are permanently feminized and simultaneously represent a constant threat for whom any
including reproduction." My argument is, first,
amount of authority, any visible trace of the phallus is multiplied in a symbolic hysteria that knows no lirnits.?" Mythical depiction of the black man's penis is a case in point: the black man is
depicted as an aggressive sexual beast who desires to rape women, particularly white women. The black woman, in turn, is seen as always already sexually available to the rapist gaze of the
white, and as fundamentally promiscuous. In short, the black woman is seen as a highly erotic being whose primary function is fulfilling sexual desire and reproduction. To be sure, any amount
of "penis" in either one represents a threat, but in his most familiar and typical forms the black man represents the act of rape- "raping" -while the black woman is seen as the most legitimate
victim of rape- "being raped." In an antiblack world black women appear as subjects who deserve to be raped and to suffer the consequences-in terms of a lack of protection from the legal
system, sexual abuse, and lack of financial assistance to sustain themselves and their families-just as black men deserve to be penalized for raping, even without having committed the act.
Both "raping" and "being raped" are attached to blackness as if they form part of the essence of black folk, who are seen as a dispensable population. Black bodies are seen as excessively
"Killability" and "rapeability" are part of their
essence, understood in a phenomenological way. The "essence" of blackness in a colonial anti-black
world is part of a larger context of meaning in which the death ethics of war gradually becomes a
constitutive part of an allegedly normal world. In its modern racial and colonial connotations and uses,
blackness is the invention and the projection of a social body oriented by the death ethics of war." This
murderous and raping social body projects the features that define it onto sub-Others in order to be able to legitimate the same behavior that is allegedly descriptive of them. The
same ideas that inspire perverted acts in war--particularly slavery, murder, and rape--are legitimized in
modernity through the idea of race and gradually come to be seen as more or less normal thanks to the
alleged obviousness and non-problematic character of black slavery and anti-black racism. To be sure, those
who suffer the consequences of such a system are primarily blacks and indigenous peoples, but it also deeply
affects all of those who appear as colored or close to darkness. In short, this system of symbolic representations, the material conditions
that in part produce and continue to legitimate it, and the existential dynamics that occur therein (which
are also at the same time derivative and constitutive of such a context) are part of a process that
naturalizes the non-ethics or death ethics of war. Sub-ontological difference is the result of such
naturalization and is legitimized through the idea of race. In such a world, ontology collapses into a Manicheanism, as Fanon suggested."
violent and erotic, as well as being the legitimate recipients of excessive violence, erotic and otherwise."
Plan
The United States Federal Government should recognize the right of the Makah tribe
to whale under the Treaty of Neah Bay regardless any legal restrictions relating to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Solvency
The current legal process is costly, lengthy, and indeterminate – it sets a dangerous
precedent that can be applied to other indigenous populations, and has no ground in
actual legal frameworks – the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ignored the Makah’s
treaty and Supreme Court precedents.
Pombo 5 (Richard, R-Calif, Committee on Resources, 109th Congress 1st Session, EXPRESSING THE
SENSE OF THE CONGRESS UPHOLDING THE MAKAH TRIBE TREATY RIGHTS,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-109hrpt283/html/CRPT-109hrpt283.htm //RJ)
H.
Con. Res. 267 expresses support for upholding the right ¶ of the Makah Tribe to hunt whales under the
Treaty of Neah Bay. ¶ The Tribe is prevented from enjoying its treaty right by a ¶ ruling of the Ninth
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals under the ¶ Marine Mammal Protection Act. The concurrent resolution is
¶ necessary because the federal government has an obligation to ¶ honor deals the United States
made with Indian tribes under ¶ treaties. ¶ During the 19th century, the United States entered into a ¶ number of treaties with
sovereign tribes in the West. The ¶ government's goal was to acquire the tribes' lands to make room ¶ for nonIndian settlement and expansion of U.S. territory. ¶ These treaties of ``cession'' usually involved deals
under ¶ which the tribes gave up significant amounts of land in ¶ exchange for reservations under the
jurisdiction of the tribe, ¶ and for the protection of certain rights. Such rights often ¶ included the right of tribal
members to hunt and fish in ¶ certain areas.¶ The Makah Tribe resides on westernmost reservation in the ¶ United
States, on the Olympic Peninsula in the State of ¶ Washington. Under the Treaty of Neah Bay of 1855, the Tribe ¶ ceded
about 300,000 acres of its aboriginal homelands to the ¶ United States. Article 4 of the treaty secured whaling rights ¶ to the Tribe, the only
such American Indian tribe with whaling ¶ rights under treaty.¶ The Tribe hunted gray whales for subsistence until it ¶ ceased hunts in the 1920s
when the whale population was reduced ¶ by commercial whaling.
However, gray whales were still hunted ¶ until 1946
when an international commercial harvest ban was put ¶ into place. Whale populations have rebounded
in recent decades ¶ and a subsistence quota was approved for the Tribe to harvest ¶ up to 20 gray whales
from 1998 through 2002, and for 20 whales ¶ between 2003 and 2007 (with no more than five allowed to be ¶ taken
in any one year). The quota is implemented in the U.S. ¶ through the Whaling Convention Act.¶ The Tribe took one gray whale
until lawsuits by animal ¶ rights activists blocked additional hunts. In 2004, the Ninth ¶ Circuit Court of Appeals
required the Tribe to seek a waiver ¶ under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) to ¶ harvest a whale, irrespective of the Tribe's
treaty right.¶ While
the Tribe has not conceded its treaty right, in ¶ February 2005 it requested a MMPA
waiver from the National ¶ Marine Fisheries Service. There is no guarantee the waiver will ¶ be granted,
leaving the Tribe with costly paperwork, studies ¶ and legal burdens that may last years with no
certain outcome .¶ More importantly, the Tribe is being forced to pursue a ¶ process that is contrary to its
treaty. The precedent set by ¶ this decision could affect other treaty rights of other tribes. ¶ This is why the
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) ¶ and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians adopted ¶ Resolutions #MOH-04-025 and #98-35,
respectively, in support of ¶ the Makah Tribe treaty rights. The
NCAI resolution notes that ¶ the MMPA ruling ``sets a
dangerous precedent that threatens the ¶ Treaty hunting and fishing rights of Tribes across the United ¶
States and Alaska.''¶ Specifically, H. Con. Res. 267 measure expresses the sense ¶ of Congress that requiring the Tribe to
adhere to the MMPA ¶ waiver process is contrary to the Tribe's treaty. It further ¶ expresses that the
government should uphold the Tribe's treaty ¶ right to hunt gray whales. During the full committee markup of ¶ the
concurrent resolution, the Chairman offered two amendments. ¶ The amendment to the resolving clause clarifies that
Congress ¶ disapproves of making the Tribe obtain a waiver under the MMPA ¶ to pursue its treaty right
to hunt gray whales. The underlying ¶ text of the concurrent resolution expresses disapproval of an ¶ ``abrogation'' of the Tribe's treaty
right. While the word ¶ ``abrogation'' was intended to make a strong statement, it is ¶ not an appropriate
term to use in the context of treaty rights, ¶ and the term is accordingly deleted by the amendment.¶ The
amendment to the preamble makes technical corrections, ¶ except for the amendments to the seventh
and eighth ``whereas'' ¶ clauses. The seventh and eight clauses are amended to clarify ¶ that Congress
finds that the Tribe's treaty rights are ¶ seriously impaired, not legally abrogated as declared in the ¶
underlying resolution.
A legal recognition of the Makah’s right to whale would act as reparation for previous
colonialist and racialized practices; the acknowledgement would reinstate their
cultural autonomy.
D’Costa 5 (Russell C., J.D. and M.S. in Environmental Law, previously part of the White House Office of
Environmental Conservation’s Legal Affairs Division, “REPARATIONS AS A BASIS FOR THE MAKAH’S
RIGHT TO WHALE” //RJ)
I. INTRODUCTION¶ V.¶ VI.¶ In
order to comprehend why permitting the Makah to whale is an acceptable form
of reparations to the tribe, one must understand the significance of whaling to the Makah. Whaling is a
traditional compo- nent of the tribe’s culture, which the Makah themselves voluntarily ceased because of the past dwindling populations of the
gray whale species. In
seeking to resume this custom, the Makah face vehement opposition from those
seeking to conserve the whales; this resistance continues to arise despite the fact that the tribe
explicitly reserved a right to whale in a treaty between the Makah and U.S. government . Regardless of
the treaty right to whale owed to the tribe, a resumption of the Makah’s whaling can also be interpreted
as a form of reparations owed to the Makah because of the dreadful past treatment of the tribe at the
hands of the United States government.¶ II. REPARATIONS TO NATIVE AMERICANS¶ A. What Reparations Represent¶
“Reparations” has generally referred to compensation for some past wrong.1 Although reparations are
often thought to imply compen- sation in monetary form, the term can to have a much broader
connotation.2 Here, with regard to the Makah, the reparations are not in monetary form; instead, their
reparations are the outward recognition of the Makah’s existent legal right to whale as reserved in the
Treaty of Neah Bay.3 Some regard this outward recognition to be the most important aspect of any form of reparations.4 In the wellknown argu- ment for reparations for descendants of African-American slaves, this recognition element is also vital:
“Reparations are recognition of the severe economic harm inflicted on blacks.”5 Human Rights Watch has also
identified reparations in this regard, noting that “[b]y ‘repara- tions’ we mean not only compensation but also
acknowledgement of past abuses . . . .”6 Likewise, by recognizing the Makah’s right to whale, the federal government
would attempt to compensate the Makah for past wrongs.7¶ It is important to compare the slave
descendants’ argument and that of the Makah, who do not seek a monetary compensation. In de- tailing
what is owed to slave descendants, it has been argued that “Af- rican-American reparations are due—indeed long overdue—on the debt owed
to African Americans for centuries of racially motivated wrongs committed during the periods of slavery and Jim Crow.”8 The Makah
are
similarly owed for the racially motivated wrongs that were committed against them.9 In detailing an approach
to reparations, Human Rights Watch has stated,¶ We recognize that there is a certain legal redundancy in
translating the duty to make reparations for past racist practices into a duty to uphold economic and
social rights . . . . However, in our view, there is something to be gained from speaking of this same duty as
arising not only from [Inter- national Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights], but also from
the distinct obligation to remedy past racist practices. That is, we would¶ provide another reason for doing the right
thing.10¶ Therefore, following the view of Human Rights Watch, recognizing the tribe’s right to whale and allowing the
Makah to whale would be an acceptable form of reparations, as it would be the “right thing to do”
because of the past racist practices against the tribe.¶ The function of reparations has also been
expressed as to “render justice by removing or redressing the consequences of the wrongful acts . . . .”11
As applied to the Makah, the past wrongful acts by the United States government of eradicating the tribe’s
culture12 will be redressed through acknowledgment and support of the tribe’s whaling, which is a
traditional component of their culture .13¶ The phenomenon of victims of historical injustices stepping for- ward to seek
compensation is on the rise. In some instances these groups are also looking for new rights:¶ Victims of
imperialism, from Native Americans in the United States to nu- merous groups in the Fourth World, are
demanding compensation for past injustices and have added dimensions to the notion of restitution by
calling for new rights in place of lost traditions. These new rights run the gamut from casinos to mineral
extraction and fishing treaties.14¶ It is essential to note that the Makah are not seeking new rights at all, but
simply want to reinstate the cultural tradition of whaling, a legal right reserved to the tribe .15
Questioning the history of the Makah whale and investigating the underlying social
structures allows for better policy analysis – we know there’s a sloppy debate to be
had about the implications of lifting the ban and questions of legal consequences, but
focusing on establishing a framework for intercultural relations and cultural relativism
first and foremost allows us to ask questions later – it is your role as an educator to
question modern Eurocentric relations to natives.
Sciullo 08 (Nick J., “A Whale of a Tale: Post-Colonialism, Critical Theory, And Decontruction: Revisiting
the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Through a Socio-Legal Perspective”,
HEINOnline //RJ)
This Article will weave critical theory,' deconstruction, and post-colonial' critiques into a tapestry of
analysis of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.' Central to this endeavor will be
considering the numerous and unique cultures intimately affected,' their problems, their heritage and
their his- tory.' The Article will focus, however, primarily on the Makah of North America-not because their whaling experience is more interesting or more worthy of attention, but because it is the most relevant to a critical inquiry into U.S. domestic law and policy. This Article
will develop the whaling debate's background, but with an eye to opening up rhetorical space, not
closing it. The goal here is not to rehash the excellent scholarship on the specific pro- visions, pitfalls, and successes of the laws, treaties,
and other miscel- lanea that have colored the whaling debate's history.' Instead, this Article will consider post-colonialism,
critical theory, and deconstructionism and how they can encourage scholars to ask questions that lead
to better policies and a greater appreciation of different cultures. The very act of questioning will, in
turn, lead to better policymaking. 8 The Article will present a venue where ideas can exist peacefully together with little attention
paid to the constraints of form and style.' It seeks not only to speak to academia, but to the masses. It will focus on the issues of
cultural property and cul- tural identity, to international law," and historicism.12 In short, it will argue that
the ban on whaling is a culturally imperialistic policy designed to assert the superiority of the nonwhaling world over a host of cultures, including but not limited to the Makah, viewed as "other." This, the
Article proceeds, is indicative of a decidedly post-colonial era where poorly conceived public policy,
denigration of minority groups, and ethnocentrism reign supreme .1 3¶ Instances of post-colonialism abound,' but
the whaling de- bate continues coming back to the forefront. Once maligned as an esoteric issue, the whaling debate has
now become a serious matter for a diverse group of actors.'" The Article will avoid, for the most part,
discussions of U.S. imperialism with respect to treaty negotiations and ratification or accession' 6 to the
extent that those argu- ments devolve into a "he said, she said" battle amongst conservative and liberal
forces pushing broad policy platforms, economic arguments for and against whaling," and most of the
environmental arguments related to whaling.'" Those are all important argu- ments that figure greatly into the broader
discussion of whaling, but to give each its due would exceed this Article's scope and pur- pose. Furthermore, a treatise on treaty
history would not encourage a forward-looking, more modern intercultural relations . The Article will
conclude with arguments in favor of cultural relativism and an ethic of critical inquiry. It will call for
public policy that is more responsive to groups of divergent backgrounds and less imperialistic.
Through our method of indigenous affirmation, we open up avenues to understand a
multiplicity of cultures at once – rather than viewing philosophies or ontologies
through the lens of competition, understanding whaling creates a political space of
inclusion rather than exclusion.
Sciullo 08 (Nick J., “A Whale of a Tale: Post-Colonialism, Critical Theory, And Decontruction: Revisiting
the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Through a Socio-Legal Perspective”,
HEINOnline //RJ)
Indigenous peoples of what is now the United States are diverse and distinct from White culture. 2 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 econo- mies.3 ' 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 indig- enous 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 non-Indian society's dominating categories, concepts, and metaphors, and other cognitive
operations."3 While clearly arguing for resistance by native peo- ples, Newcomb's 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 discus- sions about their history and the importance of that history in shaping current
cultural practices.¶ Whaling has been a historical reality for many groups over the years. 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." For the Makah ,
whaling is a culturally significant prac- tice, and not simply an exploitation of
resources." The Makah began whaling, roughly 4000 years ago, and have done so continuously for the
past 1500 years. 3 9 They are an ocean peo-¶ ple,40 having long depended on the ocean to maintain
their soci- ety."1 Whaling has provided valuable resources beyond supplying food,4 2 including providing heat,4 3 tradable goods,"
spiritual sig- nificance," and other necessities. The Makah is "the only tribe in the United States with an explicit treaty right to hunt whales.""¶
Whaling is not a practice unique to the Makah. New Zealand has a long history of whaling.4 7 Japan also
has a long history of whaling that dates back to its earliest coastal communities." 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 his- torical understanding of whaling, the scholar is unable to appreciate the nuances of the arguments for cultural whaling. Failing to understand its history inevitably leads
to a failure to understand cultural claims.¶ Cinnamon Carlarne, an author who has written extensively on whaling, is one such
scholar who has failed to fully explore the traditions of the Makah while thoroughly analyzing other whaling cultures.5 ' In a recent law review
article,5 2 Carlarne, who has an impressive record of publication and scholarly achievement5, 3 does not give so much as a nod to the
continuing debate surrounding the Makah. The history of the International Whaling Commission ("IWC") in her article is self-described as brief,
but manages to list multiple other cultures who have participated in whaling.54 When discussing an issue that is of tremendous international
importance,¶ there is a danger of forgetting the many groups inside a country that may have different and competing stakes in the issues and
pol- icies at hand.
This is truly an error or omission that speaks to the tendency of scholars to ignore or
conveniently forget the discus-¶ sion of a country's indigenous populations.¶ Whales are important both
as a source of food and as an essen- tial component of ocean ecosystems.55 Ecosystem management is
not a one-way street. The call to halt whaling is not a reaction to recent events, but is instead positioned
against a long history. The problem with many modern environmental movements is that they take a
tragically extreme worldview-one that seeks not compro- mise, but victory. That very ethic of victory
seems counterproductive for an environmentalist agenda, because it is indeed the capitalist desire for
victory that many environmentalists attack. It is in this rhetorical space that we see division amongst
environmen- talists into at least two camps-preservationists"6 and conservation- ists.57 In order to
manage effectively the many competing interests¶ in an ever-changing and increasing complex
environment, we must rise to the challenge and promote an enlightened discussion focused on
compromise and understanding, rather than a competitive engagement . What can be said of the post-critical legal
scholar? Both noth- ing and everything simultaneously. As the field of critical legal studies" expands, so too does the
resistance to expansion."o The¶ journey beyond traditional understandings of law-natural law,"¶
positivism, 2 and realism"6 -has been difficult. Scholars in the new school, who grew up in an era
radically different from the formalis- tic 1940s and 1950s, exhibit the characteristics of the traditional
drama's tragic hero. 4 At a more basic level, they bring new exper-iences to the table. Applied to whaling, this means we
may be able to develop ways of thinking about an ancient practice that moves beyond polarizing
rhetorical battles .
You have an ethical responsibility as an educator to investigate the colonial histories
of policies specifically regarding indigenous people – nuclear war impacts via of
ridiculous internal link scenarios is not probable, but our imperialistic attitude towards
natives is a constant question of survival for the Makah culture and people. Our
discursive presentation of indigenous narratives offers a counterhegemonic approach
to politics.
Roberts 10 (Treaty Rights Ignored: Neocolonialism and the Makah Whale Hunt, Author(s): Christina
Roberts, Source: The Kenyon Review, New Series, Vol. 32, No. 1 (WINTER 2010), pp. 78-90, Published by:
Kenyon College, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40600263 . Accessed: 14/07/2014 21:55 //RJ)
Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest practiced traditions that ¶ have been dramatically affected
by aggressive settlement and the commodification of natural resources, and they now must confront ¶
attempts to challenge their traditions and rights through the use of ¶ pervasive neocolonialism. The fact
that the Makah Nation is placed in ¶ a position where it has to obtain permission from local, national,
and ¶ even international systems to hunt a whale is an indication of the current complexities of
maintaining treaty rights and certain cultural ¶ traditions. The often-extreme responses to the Makah whale hunt ¶
directly threaten the Makah Nation's tribal sovereignty, and their treaty ¶ rights are targeted by blatant neocolonialism
and anti-Indigenous ¶ sentiments. ¶ Indigenous communities have beliefs and narratives distinct to ¶ their own histories and
traditions, and yet they are still held to the ¶ standards of other nations and individuals. In addition to expertly ¶ navigating the legal system in
many Indigenous communities face added pressures ¶ to
conform to the ideological structures of dominant cultures and ¶ succumb to hegemony . In order to
continue practicing cultural tradi- ¶ tions that do not resonate with beliefs of dominant cultures, ¶
Indigenous communities are also under pressure to validate their cultures through ongoing Indigenous
tribal narratives that demonstrate ¶ the importance of specific traditions and practices. Indigenous
tribal ¶ narratives are precious and vital to a collective understanding of the ¶ world and its history,
and these narratives need to be more visible and available to deflect neocolonialism . While
ceremonial knowledge ¶ should be respected, it cannot be respected by individuals who do not ¶
understand its importance. By either ignoring or being unaware of ¶ the value of these narratives,
individuals perpetuate the colonialist ¶ agendas of the past and embrace forms of neocolonialism . ¶
Neocolonialist rhetoric will continue to manifest whenever a ¶ majority culture does not approve of
Indigenous customs. Yet, indi- ¶ viduals who reside within the United States of America must see ¶ themselves as participants in a global
order to maintain certain cultural beliefs ¶ and traditions,
The U.S. and its citizens have an obligation to the Indigenous ¶ peoples
within the United States and its territories who are still experiencing the effects of colonization .
Neocolonialism and the use of ¶ blatant neocolonialist rhetoric further reinforce the wounds of
colonization and marginalize Indigenous populations through economic, ¶ legal, cultural, and political
oppression. It is time that neocolonialism ¶ is exposed so that Indigenous communities can be freed from
colonialism in all of its forms, and Indigenous tribal narratives offer one ¶ possible defense against
neocolonialism in all of its forms.
world, now more than ever ¶ before.
Impact Calculus
AT: Util
Utilitarianism is forever caught in a paradox – the classical doctrine of weighing
irrational feelings forces utilitarians to embrace self-defeating and clearly wrong
results
Williams 73 (Sir Bernard Arthur Owen, Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy at the University of
Cambridge and Deutsch Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, 1973, “A
critique of utilitarianism”, Ethics: Essential Readings in Moral Theory, Accessed 07.17.14)//LD
There is an argument, and a strong one, that a strict utilitarian should give not merely small extra weight, in calculations of right and wrong, to
feelings of this kind, but that he should give absolutely no weight to them at all. This is based on the point, which we have already seen, that if a course of action is, before taking
these sorts of feelings into account, utilitarianly preferable, then bad feelings about that kind of action will be from a utilitarian point of view irrational. Now it might be thought that even if
it is after all a well-known boast of utilitarianism
that it is a realistic outlook which seeks the best in the world as it is, and takes any form of happiness or unhappiness into account.
that is so, it would not mean that in a utilitarian calculation such feelings should not be taken into account;
While a utilitarian will no doubt seek to diminish the incidence of feelings which are utilitarianly irrational—or at least of disagreeable feelings which are so—he might be expected to take
classical utilitarian doctrine, but there is good reason to think that utilitarianism cannot stick to it
without embracing results which are startlingly unacceptable and perhaps self-defeating. Suppose that
there is in a certain society a racial minority. Considering merely the ordinary interests of the other citizens, as opposed to their
sentiments, this minority does no particular harm; we may suppose that it does not confer any very great benefits either. Its presence is in those terms
neutral or mildly beneficial. However, the other citizens have such prejudices that they find the sight of this group, even
the knowledge of its presence, very disagreeable. Proposals are made for removing in some way this minority. If
we assume various quite plausible things (as that programmes to change the majority sentiment are likely to be protracted and
ineffective) then even if the removal would be unpleasant for the minority, a utilitarian calculation might
well end up favouring this step, especially if the minority were a rather small minority and the majority were very severely prejudiced, that is to say, were made very severely
uncomfortable by the presence of the minority. A utilitarian might find that conclusion embarrassing; and not merely because of its nature, but because of
the grounds on which it is reached. While a utilitarian might be expected to take into account certain other sorts of consequences of the prejudice, as that a majority prejudice is
likely to be displayed in conduct disagreeable to the minority, and so forth, he might be made to wonder whether the unpleasant experiences of
the prejudiced people should be allowed, merely as such, to count. If he does count them, merely as such, then he has once more
separated himself from a body of ordinary moral thought which he might have hoped to accommodate; he may also have started on the
path of defeating his own view of things. For one feature of these sentiments is that they are from the utilitarian point of
view itself irrational, and a thoroughly utilitarian person would either not have them, or if he found that he did tend to have them,
them into account while they exist. This is without doubt
would himself seek to discount them. Since the sentiments in question are such that a rational utilitarian would discount them in himself, it is reasonable to suppose that he should discount
; it does seem quite unreasonable for him to givejust as much weight to feelings—considered
just in themselves, one must recall, as experiences of those that have them—which are essentially based on views which are from a utilitarian
point of view irrational, as to those which accord with utilitarian principles. Granted this idea, it seems reasonable for him to rejoin a body of moral
thought in other respects congenial to him, and discount those sentiments, just considered in themselves, totally, on the principle that no pains or discomforts are to
count in the utilitarian sum which their subjects have just because they hold views which are by utilitarian standards irrational. But if he accepts that, then in the cases
we are at present considering no extra weight at all can be put in for bad feelings of George or Jim about their choices, if those choices are,
leaving out those feelings, on the first round utilitarianly rational.
them in his calculations about society
AT: Focus on Crises
Crisis-based politics distract from omnipresent violence and feed the belief that the
absence of armed conflict is peace
Cuomo 96 (Chris J, Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies, University of Georgia, Fall 1996,
“War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence”, Hypatia, Vol. 11, Issue
4)//LD
Theory that does not investigate or even notice the omnipresence of ¶ militarism cannot represent or address the depth and specificity
of the everyday effects of militarism on women, on people living in occupied territories, on ¶ members of military institutions, and on the environment. These effects are
¶ relevant to feminists in a number of ways because military practices and ¶ institutions help construct gendered and national identity,
and because they ¶ justify the destruction of natural nonhuman entities and communities during ¶ peacetime. Lack
of attention to these aspects of the business of making or ¶ preventing military violence in an extremely technologized world results in ¶ theory that cannot accommodate the connections among the constant presence of
militarism, declared wars, and other closely related social phenomena, ¶ such as nationalistic glorifications of motherhood, media violence, and current ¶ ideological gravitations to military solutions for social problems. ¶
Ethical approaches that do not attend to the ways in which warfare and ¶ military practices are woven into the very fabric of
life in twenty-first century ¶ technological states lead to crisis-based politics and analyses. For any feminism ¶ that aims to resist oppression and create alternative social and
political ¶ options, crisis-based ethics and politics are problematic because they distract ¶ attention from the need for
sustained resistance to the enmeshed, omnipresent ¶ systems of domination and oppression that so often function as
givens in most ¶ people’s lives. Neglecting the omnipresence of militarism allows the false belief ¶ that the absence
of declared armed conflicts is peace , the polar opposite of war. ¶ It is particularly easy for those whose lives are shaped
by the safety of privilege, ¶ and who do not regularly encounter the realities of militarism, to maintain this ¶ false belief. The belief that militarism is an
ethical, political concern only ¶ regarding armed conflict, creates forms of resistance to militarism that are ¶ merely
exercises in crisis control. Antiwar resistance is then mobilized when ¶ the “real” violence finally occurs, or when the stability of privilege is directly threatened, and at that point it is difficult not to respond in ways
that make ¶ resisters drop all other political priorities. Crisis-driven attention to declarations of war might actually keep resisters complacent about and
complicitous ¶ in the general presence of global militarism. Seeing war as necessarily embedded in constant military presence draws attention to the fact that horrific, ¶ statesponsored violence is happening nearly all over, all of the time, and that ¶ it is perpetrated by military
institutions and other militaristic agents of the ¶ state. Moving away from crisis-driven politics and ontologies concerning war and¶ military violence also enables
consideration of relationships among seemingly¶ disparate phenomena, and therefore can shape more nuanced
theoretical and¶ practical forms of resistance. For example, investigating the ways in which war¶ is part of a presence allows consideration
of the relationships among the events¶ of war and the following: how militarism is a foundational trope in the social¶ and political
imagination; how the pervasive presence and symbolism of¶ soldiers/warriors/patriots shape meanings of gender; the ways in which
threats¶ of state-sponsored violence are a sometimes invisible/sometimes bold agent of¶ racism, nationalism, and corporate interests; the fact that
vast numbers of¶ communities, cities, and nations are currently in the midst of excruciatingly¶ violent circumstances. It also
provides a lens for considering the relationships¶ among the various kinds of violence that get labeled "war." Given current¶ American obsessions with nationalism,
guns, and militias, and growing hunger¶ for the death penalty, prisons, and a more powerful police state, one cannot¶
underestimate the need for philosophical and political attention to connections among phenomena like the "war on
drugs," the "war on crime," and¶ other state-funded militaristic campaigns.
Viewing wars as events with beginnings and ends ignores violence caused by everyday
militarism
Cuomo 96 (Chris J, Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies, University of Georgia, Fall 1996,
“War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence”, Hypatia, Vol. 11, Issue
4)//LD
Philosophical attention to war has typically appeared in the form of justifications for entering into war, and over
appropriate activities within war. The ¶ spatial metaphors used to refer to war as a separate, bounded sphere
indicate ¶ assumptions that war is a realm of human activity vastly removed from normal ¶ life, or a sort of happening
that is appropriately conceived apart from everyday ¶ events in peaceful times. Not surprisingly, most discussions of
the political and ¶ ethical dimensions of war discuss war solely as an event-an occurrence, or ¶ collection of occurrences,
having clear beginnings and endings that are typically marked by formal, institutional declarations. As
happenings, wars and ¶ military activities can be seen as motivated by identifiable, if complex, intentions, and directly
enacted by individual and collective decision-makers and ¶ agents of states. But many of the questions about war that
are of interest to ¶ feminists-including how large-scale, state-sponsored violence affects women ¶ and members of
other oppressed groups; how military violence shapes gendered, raced, and nationalistic political realities and moral
imaginations; what ¶ such violence consists of and why it persists; how it is related to other ¶ oppressive and
violent institutions and hegemonies-cannot be adequately ¶ pursued by focusing on events. These issues are not
merely a matter of good or ¶ bad intentions and identifiable decisions. In “Gender and ‘Postmodern’ War,” Robin Schott introduces
some of the ¶ ways in which war is currently best seen not as an event but as a presence ¶ (Schott 1995). Schott argues that
postmodern understandings of persons, ¶ states, and politics, as well as the high-tech nature of much contemporary ¶
warfare and the preponderance of civil and nationalist wars, render an eventbased conception of war inadequate,
especially insofar as gender is taken into ¶ account. In this essay, I will expand upon her argument by showing that ¶ accounts of war
that only focus on events are impoverished in a number of ¶ ways, and therefore feminist consideration of the political, ethical,
and ontological dimensions of war and the possibilities for resistance demand a much ¶ more complicated approach. I take Schott’s
characterization of war as presence ¶ as a point of departure, though I am not committed to the idea that the ¶ constancy of militarism, the fact
of its omnipresence in human experience, and ¶ the paucity of an event-based account of war are exclusive to contemporary ¶ postmodern or
postcolonial circumstances.’ ¶
AT: Just-war Theory
Just-war theory doesn’t take into account militaristic violence that happens during
“peacetime” – can’t evaluate military institutions
Cuomo 96 (Chris J, Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies, University of Georgia, Fall 1996,
“War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence”, Hypatia, Vol. 11, Issue
4)//LD
Just-war theory is a prominent example of a philosophical approach that ¶ rests on the assumption that wars
are isolated from everyday life and ethics. ¶ Such theory, as developed by St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Hugo ¶ Grotius,
and as articulated in contemporary dialogues by many philosophers, ¶ including Michael Walzer (1977), Thomas Nagel (1974), and Sheldon
Cohen ¶ (1989), take
the primary question concerning the ethics of warfare to be about ¶ when to enter into
military conflicts against other states. They therefore take ¶ as a given the notion that war is an isolated, definable event with clear ¶
boundaries. These boundaries are significant because they distinguish the ¶ circumstances in which standard
moral rules and constraints, such as rules ¶ against murder and unprovoked violence, no longer apply. Just-war theory ¶
assumes that war is a separate sphere of human activity having its own ethical ¶ constraints and criteria and in doing
so it begs the question of whether or not ¶ war is a special kind of event, or part of a pervasive presence in nearly all ¶ contemporary life. ¶
Because the application of just-war principles is a matter of proper decision¶ making on the part of agents of the state, before wars occur, and
before military ¶ strikes are made, they assume that military initiatives are distinct events. In ¶ fact, declarations of
war are
generally overdetermined escalations of preexisting conditions. Just-war criteria cannot help evaluate
military and related ¶ institutions, including their peacetime practices and how these relate to ¶ wartime activities, so they
cannot address the ways in which armed conflicts ¶ between and among states emerge from omnipresent , often
violent, state ¶ militarism. The remarkable resemblances in some sectors between states of ¶ peace and states of war remain
completely untouched by theories that are only ¶ able to discuss the ethics of starting and ending direct
military conflicts ¶ between and among states. ¶ Applications of just-war criteria actually help create the illusion that
the ¶ “problem of war” is being addressed when the only considerations are the ¶ ethics of declaring
wars and of military violence within the boundaries of ¶ declarations of war and peace. Though just-war considerations might
theoretically help decision-makers avoid specific gross eruptions of military violence, ¶ the aspects of war which require the underlying
presence of militarism and the ¶ direct effects of the omnipresence of militarism remain untouched. There may ¶ be important decisions to
be made about
when and how to fight war, but these ¶ must be considered in terms of the many other
aspects of contemporary war ¶ and militarism that are significant to nonmilitary personnel, including women ¶ and nonhumans.
Probability
Reject impacts predicated off long internal link chains – contrary to human instinct,
specificity reduces the risk of an event
Yudkowsky 8 (Eliezer, Machine Intelligence Research Institute, 2008, “Cognitive Biases Potentially
Affecting Judgment of Global Risks”, Global Catastrophic Risks, pp 91-119, Accessed 07.15.14)//LD
According to probability theory, adding additional detail onto a story must render¶ the story less probable. It is less
probable that Linda is a feminist bank teller than that¶ she is a bank teller, since all feminist bank tellers are necessarily bank tellers. Yet human¶ psychology seems to
follow the rule that adding an additional detail can make the story¶ more plausible.¶ People might pay more for
international diplomacy intended to prevent nanotechnological warfare by China, than for an engineering project to
defend against nanotechnological attack from any source. "The second threat scenario is less vivid and alarming, but¶ the defense
is more useful because it is more vague. More valuable still would be strategies¶ which make humanity
harder to extinguish without being specific to nanotechnologic¶ threats—such as colonizing space, or see Yudkowsky (2008) on AI. Security expert Bruce¶
Schneier observed (both before and after the 2005 hurricane in New Orleans) that the¶ U.S. government was guarding specific domestic targets against "movie-plot scenarios"¶ of terrorism,
Overly detailed reassurances can also
create false perceptions of safety: "X is not¶ an existential risk and you don't need to worry about it, because A, B, C, D, and E";¶ where the failure of any one of
at the cost of taking away resources from emergency-response capabilities¶ that could respond to any disaster (Schneier 2005).¶
propositions A, B, C, D, or E potentially extinguishes¶ the human species. "We don't need to worry about nanotechnologic war, because a¶ UN commission will initially develop the technology
and prevent its proliferation until¶ such time as an active shield is developed, capable of defending against all accidental and¶ malicious outbreaks that contemporary nanotechnology is
Vivid, specific scenarios can inflate our probability¶ estimates of
security, as well as misdirecting defensive investments into needlessly narrow¶ or implausibly detailed risk scenarios.¶
More generally, people tend to overestimate conjunctive probabilities and underestimate disjunctive probabilities
capable of producing, and this¶ condition will persist indefinitely."
(Tversky and ICahneman 1974). That is, people tend¶ to overestimate the probability that, e.g., seven events of 90% probability will all oc-¶ cur. Conversely, people tend to underestimate the
Someone judging whether to, e.g., incorporate a¶ new startup,
must evaluate the probability that many individual events will all go right¶ (there will be sufficient funding, competent employees,
customers will want the product)¶ while also considering the likelihood that at least one critical failure will occur (the bank¶
probability that at least one of seven¶ events of 10% probability will occur.
refuses a loan, the biggest project fails, the lead scientist dies). This may help explain¶ why only 44% of entrepreneurial ventures2 survive after 4 years (Knaup 2005).¶ Dawes (1988, 133)
observes: "In their summations lawyers avoid arguing from dis-¶ junctions ('either this or that or the other could have occurred, all of which would lead¶ to the same conclusion) in favor of
The scenario of humanity going extinct in the
next century is a disjunctive event.¶ It could happen as a result of any of the existential risks we already know about—or¶ some other cause which none of us
foresaw. Yet for a futurist, disjunctions make for an¶ awkward and unpoetic-sounding prophecy.
conjunctions. Rationally, of course, disjunctions are¶ much more probable than are conjunctions."¶ "
People use intuition instead of logic to calculate probabilities -scenarios that seem
more “realistic” usually have too many details to be probable
Yudkowsky 8 (Eliezer, Machine Intelligence Research Institute, 2008, “Cognitive Biases Potentially
Affecting Judgment of Global Risks”, Global Catastrophic Risks, pp 91-119, Accessed 07.15.14)//LD
In the above task, the exact probabilities for each event could in principle have been¶ calculated by the students.
However, rather than go to the effort of a numerical calculation, it would seem that (at least 65% of) the students
made an intuitive guess, based¶ on which sequence seemed most "representative" of the die. Calling this "the represen-¶ tativeness
heuristic" does not imply that students deliberately decided that they would¶ estimate probability by estimating similarity. Rather, the
representativeness heuristic is¶ what produces the intuitive sense that sequence (2) "seems more likely" than sequence¶ (1). In other words
the "representativeness heuristic" is a built-in feature of the brain for¶ producing rapid probability judgments
rather than a consciously adopted procedure. We¶ are not aware of substituting judgment of representativeness for
judgment of probability.¶ "The conjunction fallacy similarly applies to futurological forecasts. Two indepen-¶ dent sets of professional
analysts at the Second International Congress on Forecasting¶ were asked to rate, respectively, the probability of
"A complete suspension of diplomatic¶ relations between the USA and the Soviet Union, sometime in 1983" or
"A Russian invasion of Poland, and a complete suspension of diplomatic relations between the USA¶ and the Soviet
Union, sometime in 1983." "The second set of analysts responded with¶ significantly higher probabilities (Tversky and
Kahneman 1983).¶ In Johnson et al. (1993), MBA students at Wharton were scheduled to travel to¶ Bangkok as part of their degree
program. Several groups of students were asked how¶ much they were willing to pay for terrorism insurance. One
group of subjects was asked¶ how much they were willing to pay for terrorism insurance covering the flight from¶ Thailand to
the US. A second group of subjects was asked how much they were willing¶ to pay for terrorism insurance covering the round-trip
flight. A third group was asked¶ how much they were willing to pay for terrorism insurance that covered the complete trip¶ to
Thailand. These three groups responded with average willingness to pay of $17.19,¶ S13.90, and S7.44
respectively.
Time Frame
Policy will always prioritize one-shot, dramatic impacts over slow violence – we must
look first to attritional calamities to prevent them from building up over time
Nixon 6 (Rob, Professor of English, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2006, “Slow Violence, Gender,
and the Environmentalism of the Poor”, Journal of Commonwealth and Postcolonial Studies, Vol. pp 114, Accessed 07.15.14)//LD
To address the challenges of slow violence is to confront the dilemma¶ Rachel Carson faced over forty years ago in seeking
to dramatize what she¶ called "death by indirection" (32). Carson's subjects were biomagnification¶ and toxic drift, forms of oblique,
slow-acting violence that, like climate¶ change and desertification, pose formidable imaginative difficulties for¶ writers
and activists alike. How, in an age that venerates the instant and the¶ spectacular, can one turn attritional calamities
starring nobody into stories¶ dramatic enough to rouse public sentiment? In struggling to give shape to¶ an amorphous
menace, both Carson and reviewers of Silent Spring resorted¶ to a narratological vocabulary: one reviewer portrayed the book as exposing¶
"the new, unplotted and mysterious dangers we insist upon creating all¶ around us," (Sevareid 3) while Carson herself wrote of "a shadow that
is no¶ less ominous because it is formless and obscure" (238).1¶ To
confront what I am calling slow violence requires that we
attempt to¶ give symbolic shape and plot to formless threats whose fatal repercussions¶ are dispersed
across space and time. Politically and emotionally, different¶ kinds of disaster possess unequal heft. Falling bodies, burning
towers,¶ exploding heads have a visceral, page-turning potency that tales of slow¶ violence cannot match.
Stories of toxic buildup, massing greenhouse gases,¶ or desertification may be cataclysmic, but they're scientifically convoluted¶
cataclysms in which casualties are deferred, often for generations. In the¶ gap between acts of slow violence
and their delayed effects both memory¶ and causation readily fade from view and the casualties thus incurred pass¶
untallied.¶ The long dyings that ensue from slow violence are out of sync not only¶ with our dramatic expectations, but
with the swift seasons of electoral¶ change. How can leaders be goaded to avert catastrophe when the political¶
rewards of their actions will be reaped on someone else's watch, decades,¶ even centuries from now? How can environmental
storytellers and activists¶ help counter the potent forces of political self-interest, procrastination,¶ and dissembling? We
see such dissembling at work, for instance, in the¶ afterword to Michael Crichton's 2004 environmental conspiracy novel, State¶ of Fear, where
he argues that
we need twenty more years of data gathering on climate change before any policy decisions can be
made (626). For his¶ pains, Crichton, though he lacked even an undergraduate science degree,¶ was appointed to President Bush's special
committee on climate change.¶ The oxymoronic notion of slow violence poses representational,¶ statistical, and
legislative challenges. The under-representation of slow¶ violence in the media results in the discounting of
casualties-from, for¶ example, the toxic aftermaths of wars-which in turn exacerbates the¶ difficulty of securing effective
legal measures for preemption, restitution,¶ and redress.
Hegemonic ideology prompts us to prioritize national security over human security –
the only way to counter this is to focus on everyday suffering
Biyanwila 8 (Janaka, University of Western Australia, 09.20.08, “Re-empowering labour : Knowledge,
ontology and counter-hegemony”, http://www.tasa.org.au/uploads/2011/05/Biyanwila-Janaka-Session59-PDF.pdf, Accessed 07.15.14)//LD
An often ignored significant structural effect of neo-liberal globalisation, particularly in the¶ South, is the spread of
violence and insecurity. Under neo-liberal ideology, the spread of¶ "flexible labour markets" and the privatisation public goods,
depends on authoritarian state¶ forms that prioritise 'national security* over 'human security' . The generative
mechanism of¶ this violence and insecurity are structures of power that reproduce conditions of exploitation,¶
oppression and subjugation (Das, 1990; Gallung, 1996, 2004; Moser, 2001). Various¶ manifestations of violence that
permeate multiple scales and temporalities are generated by¶ structural coupling of capitalism, patriarchy, racism and imperialism
(Das, 1990; Moser,¶ 2001; Panilch, 2002; Ali and Ercelan, 2004). The adoption of new coercive domestic and¶ international
measures by the US in the post 9-11 context, under the 'war against terrorism',¶ reflects the restructuring of
the coercive apparatuses of all stales to coordinate and maintain¶ the US global hegemony (Panitch, 2002). These
authoritarian slate strategies often depend on¶ 'uncivil* actors in civil society for reproducing structures of
violence. Of course, this¶ structural violence is debilitating and undermines individual and collective agency.¶ Nevertheless, it
is also at the root of social protest and mobilisation (Panitch, 2002). The¶ multiplicity of struggles from Communists Maoists in tribal areas of
India to the Zapatistas in¶ indigenous areas of Mexico, illustrate collective struggles forced into violent modes of¶ resistance.¶ Under neo-liberal
globalisation, the deregulation of labour markets and
privatisation of public¶ goods has involved an escalation of
violence in the realm of production as well as social¶ reproduction. In the realm of production, the global restructuring of production and
the spread¶ of 'flexible labour markets' have meant a manufacturing of insecurity (Webster el al., 2008).¶ The increasing insecurity of
employment and wages intersect with an intensification work¶ which subordinates, neglects and devalues concerns of well-being, dignity and
social justice.¶ For women workers absorbed into casualised work, their marginalised status involves a¶ spectrum of experiences encompassing
sexual harassment, abuse and humiliation. In the¶ realm of reproduction, women's unpaid household work has intensified by the uncertainly
of¶ paid work. Particularly in the global South, the privatisation of
public goods (water,¶ education, health, transport, etc.) has
pushed more women into poverty and added to the¶ intensification of household labour. Women have also lost
access to decent public sector jobs¶ with the marketisation of the state. The privatisation process involving the displacement of¶
communities from access to common resources (forests, water, land, seeds and genes, oceans¶ and culture) for the
purposes of 'development' (large dams, roads, SEZs, etc.), illustrates a¶ process of primitive accumulation that reproduces
structures generating violence and¶ insecurity (Chandra and Basu, 2007). The coupling of neo-liberal globalisation with the
rise¶ of ethno-nationalist forces, particularly in the South Asia, has reinforced multiple forms of¶ violence, mainly violence against women and
marginalised communities (Das, 1990),¶ The development of
a counter discourse depends on factoring in experiences of
violence,¶ insecurity and suffering , in terms of articulating counter hegemonic struggles. By factoring in¶ how different
experiences of violence permeate the everyday life of people, the aim is to gain¶ a deeper understanding of how
hegemonic relations of power and knowledge restrain as well¶ as shape collective agency and counter movements. This
focus on ontology is mainly framed¶ from a strategic-theoretical perspective for gaining a better understanding
of how the politics¶ of everyday life interact with representative (electoral party politics) and movement politics.
Chronic under-representation of slow violence is proven by statistics – belated
casualties have historically been ignored
Nixon 6 (Rob, Professor of English, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2006, “Slow Violence, Gender,
and the Environmentalism of the Poor”, Journal of Commonwealth and Postcolonial Studies, Vol. pp 114, Accessed 07.15.14)//LD
The representational bias against slow violence has statistical¶ ramifications; under-represented
casualties—human and environmental—¶ are the casualties most likely to be discounted. We see this,
for instance, in¶ the way wars whose lethal repercussions sprawl across space and time are¶ tidily bookended in the historical record. A 2003 New York Times editorial¶ on Vietnam reported, "during our
dozen years there, the U.S. killed and¶ helped kill at least 1.5 million people" ("Vietnam" A25). That
simple word¶ "during," however, shrinks the toll: hundreds of thousands survived the¶ war years, only
to lose their lives prematurely to Agent Orange. In a 2002¶ study, the environmental scientist Arnold
Schecter recorded dioxin levels¶ in the bloodstreams of Bien Hoa residents at 135 times the levels of
Hanoi's¶ inhabitants, who lived far north of the spraying (Schecter 516). The afflicted¶ include
thousands of children born decades after the war's end. More than¶ thirty years after the last spraying
run. Agent Orange continues to wreak¶ havoc as, through biomagnification, dioxins build up in the fatty
tissues of¶ pivotal foods like duck and fish and pass from the natural world into the¶ cooking pot and
from there to ensuing human generations. "During": a¶ small word, yet a powerful reminder of how
easily the belated casualties of¶ slow violence are habitually screened from view.
Solvency
Epistemology---Solvency---2AC
Traditional educational systems are epistemologically bankrupt and silence native
voices—the affirmative’s presentation of the Makah hunt allows us to deconstruct its
oppression
Marker 6
(Michael Marker is a professor of Educational Studies @ University of British Columbia, “After the Makah Whale Hunt: Indigenous Knowledge
and Limits to Multicultural Discourse,” August 7, 2006, Urban Education, vol:41 iss:5 pg:482 -505, Sage Pub)//BB
No recent event has exposed the present limits to "multicultural openness" and classroom cultural responsiveness more than the
Makah
whale hunt and the anti-Indian backlash that followed. When the Makah tribe hunted and killed a whale off the Washington
coast on May 17, 1999, it kindled a sweeping aggression against Indians in the region and even across North America. In Puget Sound
communities, it was the worst climate for Indian-White relations since the fishing wars of the 1970s, when anti-Indian bumper stickers and Tshirts were commonplace. Whereas the whale hunt has been discussed as a media relations circus related to the politics of animal rights
environmentalists, the event was never talked about as a
profound rupture in the prospects for cross- cultural
education. The classroom context of hostility toward indigenous perspectives on land, identity, and food revealed the limits to meaningful
considerations of culture within educational institutions. The whale hunt was regarded as an environmental issue, but it
was evaded as a core epistemological problem for edu- cational settings. Schools are founded on a way
of knowing that distances and isolates students from engaging with both commu- nity and the local
ecosystem (Gruenwald, 2003). For Indian people, their ways or understanding have always been inseparable from
their web of relationships in the natural world. Many indigenous communities are attempting to reassem- ble components of their
traditional ways of life and learning in a contemporary context. These endeavors, although understood by the tribal community as
reinvigorating old values and beliefs, are often misunderstood by the dominant society. Meanwhile, the popular media have so saturated the
public imagination with Indian stereotypes that educators tend to place indigenous people in a frozen exotic past or an assimilated, degenerate
present iden- tity. In Neah Bay, protesters held up signs: "Save a whale, hunt a Makah" (Harris, Lyon, & McLaughlin, 2005,
p. 82). Apart from the important social justice concerns raised by the persistent backlash against Aboriginal political resurgence (Lomawaima &
McCarty, 2002), there
is a deeper epistemological collision that animates these moments and challenges us
to view schools through an indigenous lens. The backlash against tribal students was not confined to environmental education
issues but reveals how the mainstream culture of the classroom silences both the native voice and a deeper
cross-cultural reflection. Because the schools privilege a form of knowledge that presumes the cul- tural
neutrality of science and technology, indigenous ecological understandings are dismissed as exotic, but
irrelevant, distrac- tion. Rather than disparaging or ignoring indigenous values and choices, educators should seize a potent
opportunity for a cross- cultural critique (Marcus & Fischer, 1986), focusing a mirror back at the commonplace assumptions
about nature, history, iden- tity, and food. This is a setting where anthropology's comparative approach lo understanding culture would have
been exceedingly useful. Recently, there has been an intensification of assaults on Aboriginal people by both academic writers and journalists
who portray them as fraudulent models for ecologically sustainable lifeways. Most of these writings assert that Indians have become
assimilated and so do not represent any connection with an Abo- riginal past that has likewise been mythologized and romanti- cized. Founded
on iconoclastic zeal, these texts go too far. In an effort to expose the cardboard version of "'Indian as ecologist," they end up like Krech's (1999)
book. The Ecological Indian, having an underlying theme of "Indians are just like us": For every story about Indians being at the receiving end of
envi- ronmental racism or taking actions usually associated with con- servation or environmentalism is a conflicting story about ihcm exploiting
resources or endangering lands—and inevitably disap- pointing non-Indian environmentalists and conservationists. In Indian country, as in the
larger society, conservation is often sac- rificed for economic security, (p. 227)
Poverty---Solvency---2AC
The plan revives all aspects of the Makah community
D’Costa 5
(Russel D’Costa earned his J.D. and M.S. in Environmental Law from Vermont Law School, he is clerking for the Hon. Dianne T. Renwick,
Supreme Court Justice, Bronx County, “REPARATIONS AS A BASIS FOR THE MAKAH’S RIGHT TO WHALE,” Animal Law Review at Lewis & Clark
School of Law, Vol. 12:71, http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/lralvol12_1_p71.pdf)//BB
B. Why Allowing the Makah to Whale is an Acceptable Form of Reparations 1. Enhancing the Makah’s Cultural Determination through Whaling
Aside from providing the Makah with a sense of justice, to
allow the Makah to resume whaling also enhances the tribe’s
perception of its cultural self-determination. The value of enhancing the Makah’s culture may appear intangible to some, yet it
is vital to the tribe because it recognizes the cultural significance of whaling to the Makah. As Verchick explains, [E]nvironmental problems
cannot be successfully or completely addressed without a firm commitment to understanding each problem’s social setting. The
Makah
unearthed their once-proud whaling tradition for social and spiritual reasons; one should not doubt this, but there
was more to it than that. The Makah are one of so many native tribes that have been swindled, insulted,
ignored, and economically impoverished, and they were staging an act of political defiance. In Deweyan
terms, the Makah’s right to whale was both an end in itself, and a means to yet another set of ends, in this case self-rule and cultural identity.
From the day the Makah rooted their arguments in the tribe’s treaty rights, it should have been clear that whatever else this debate would be
about, it would be about the Enlightenment goals of emancipation and self-realization.122 Therefore, the practice of whaling will benefit the
Makah because they would have the opportunity to “control their own destiny” with regard to an activity that has traditionally played an
essential role in their culture. The
Makah’s act of engaging in whaling expresses the tribe’s own cultural identity;
the same identity that the government previously attempted to eradicate. Miller elaborates: The determination of
the Makah Tribe to pursue its ancient whaling custom is an excellent example of a distinct group of people and a separate political state
defining its culture and exercising cultural self-determination by practicing that culture according to its traditions . . . . It is important to the
Makah to stay separate and distinguishable from the Anglo- American society that tried so hard to destroy Makah culture and to assimilate its
people into the American “melting pot.” The Makah have shown that they will fight to keep their own “personality” as a nation, race, and
people and will teach this culture to their children.123 In essence, re-commencement of
whaling both symbolizes and
makes tangible the Makah’s historic struggle to preserve their way of life; it is the most visible
expression of the Makah’s valiant attempt at cultural revival. 2. Improving the Makah’s Sense of Community through
Whaling The Makah’s present quality of life will likely rise as the Makah revive their whaling tradition. The
tribe currently endures the harsh living conditions that plague many other Native American tribes; this includes a fifty percent
unemployment rate, drug abuse, and alcoholism.124 Household incomes of members of the tribe average about only seven
thousand dollars per year, and a rise in juvenile crime has also been reported.125 However, many Makah believe these
harsh conditions will soon change because of the tribe’s whaling. “Makah leaders believe that a return to whaling will
not only contribute to the Tribe’s subsistence and economic needs, but it will also help to revive a sense of community, selfworth and spirituality.”126 The sense of community, for example, will undoubtedly be strengthened because
the sharing of food and work related to whaling will serve to help bond the community.127 In addition, the
Makah’s sense of spirituality will improve with the whaling rights as many of the tribe’s traditional beliefs, customs, and
ceremonies will be revived. For example, Part of the spirituality of hunting cultures around the world includes honoring and
respecting the animals that preserve their lives and families. These cultures emphasize the mutual dependence animals
and humans have on each other and they strive to gain the favor or good will of animal souls by
observing appropriate rituals and etiquette . . . .128 An increase in economic and market opportunities should emerge within
the Makah community as a result of the economic benefits derived from the various exchanges and dealings that stem from the whale meat
transactions. Whaling
would therefore play a vital part in reviving the Makah’s weak native economy as
members exchange the whales’ meat and bones. It is critical to acknowledge, however, that the extent of the Makah’s
economic benefit from, and harm to, the species greatly differs from that of the commercial whaling industry.129 This new meat
source might also benefit the Makah tribe’s overall nutrition and health. Scientific research has found marine mammal fats to be
especially healthy, as they can prevent cardiovascular disease. 130 A return to this traditional source of protein may be especially essential
since “the
Makah and other American Indians are suffering with an epidemic of diabetes that is also partly
attributable to western foods replacing traditional diets. Perhaps a return to their historical diet would
help improve the health of the Makah Tribe.”131
Moral Obligation---Solvency---2AC
The USFG imposed cultural genocide on the Makah—it has a moral obligation to allow
Makah whaling
D’Costa 5
(Russel D’Costa earned his J.D. and M.S. in Environmental Law from Vermont Law School, he is clerking for the Hon. Dianne T. Renwick,
Supreme Court Justice, Bronx County, “REPARATIONS AS A BASIS FOR THE MAKAH’S RIGHT TO WHALE,” Animal Law Review at Lewis & Clark
School of Law, Vol. 12:71, http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/lralvol12_1_p71.pdf)//BB
Specific federal
actions that sought to control and even eradicate the Makah’s culture have been detailed.109 The
Makah faced cultural and religious oppression from the federal government through the Neah Bay
Indian Agency’s efforts to “wipe out the Makah language”110 and through the agency’s attempt to “withdraw
the children from their culture and families and raise them as ‘white’ children.”111 Federal agents also
discouraged the tribe’s longhouse style,112 encouraged the Makah to dress like whites, selected men to
serve as chiefs (similar to Steven’s actions at the Treaty of Neah Bay negotiations), and suppressed numerous cultural
activities, including dances, because they were considered “heathenish and barbarous.”113 The tribe’s secret religious and curing
societies’ ceremonies were also banned;114 therefore, some Makah were forced to travel to an island off the tip of Cape Flattery in
order to hold these ceremonies.115 Today, such a forced “exodus” due to federal restrictions would undoubtedly raise vehement public
The tribe must have recourse for these past wrongs . In addition, the federal government
historically attacked the structure of Makah families through assimilation and oppression efforts.
Federal agents sought to segregate elder tribal members ages fifty-five and up so that the younger Makah
could no longer be influenced by these elders, thereby leaving them more susceptible to learn the
“civilized” American ways.116 Furthermore, Makah parents were arrested if they did not send their children
to boarding school.117 Ultimately, the Makah children endured a great deal. They were routinely punished if they
spoke their native tongue,118 they were required to dress in American clothing, and forced to accept the
Christian religion. 119 Unfortunately, these attacks proved successful as Makah children became alienated from both
their families and culture.120 Collectively, the government efforts sought to exterminate the Makah’s
identity; hence, these past injustices to the tribe must be remedied. The history of the Makah
oppression highlights how permitting the tribe to whale, regardless of the legal right they possess under the Treaty of
Neah Bay, may serve as a form of cultural reparations. The reparations notion is clearly supported in the argument that “ the
U.S. Government has a moral , if not quite legal, duty to provide restitution to the descendants of the tribal
nations it destroyed and oppressed .”121 Permitting the tribe to whale is an acceptable form of
reparations for the past harsh treatment because of the many benefits whaling provides to the Makah.
opposition.
Reparations Key---Solvency---2AC
Reparations are key—other forms of compensation fail—moral obligation to permit
Makah whaling
D’Costa 5
(Russel D’Costa earned his J.D. and M.S. in Environmental Law from Vermont Law School, he is clerking for the Hon. Dianne T. Renwick,
Supreme Court Justice, Bronx County, “REPARATIONS AS A BASIS FOR THE MAKAH’S RIGHT TO WHALE,” Animal Law Review at Lewis & Clark
School of Law, Vol. 12:71, http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/lralvol12_1_p71.pdf)//BB
“Reparations” has generally referred to compensation for some past wrong.1 Although reparations are often thought to imply
compensation in monetary form, the term can to have
a much broader conno- tation.2 Here, with regard to the Makah,
reparations are the outward recognition of the Makah’s
existent legal right to whale as reserved in the Treaty of Neah Bay.3 Some regard this outward recognition to be the
the reparations are not in monetary form; instead, their
most important aspect of any form of reparations.4 In the well-known argument for reparations for descendants of African-American slaves,
this recognition element is also vital: “Reparations are recognition of the severe economic harm inflicted on blacks.”5
Human Rights Watch has also identified reparations in this regard, noting that “[b]y ‘reparations’ we mean not only compensation but also
acknowledgement of past abuses . . . .”6 Likewise, by
recognizing the Makah’s right to whale, the federal government
would attempt to compensate the Makah for past wrongs.7 It is important to compare the slave descendants’ argument
and that of the Makah, who do not seek a monetary compensation. In detailing what is owed to slave descendants, it has been argued that
“African- American reparations are due—indeed long overdue—on the debt owed to African Americans for centuries of racially motivated
wrongs committed during the periods of slavery and Jim Crow.”8 The
Makah are similarly owed for the racially motivated
wrongs that were committed against them.9 In detailing an approach to reparations, Human Rights Watch has stated, We
recognize that there is a certain legal redundancy in translating the duty to make reparations for past racist practices into a duty to uphold
economic and social rights . . . . However, in our view, there is something to be gained from speaking of this same duty as arising not only from
[International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights], but also from the distinct obligation to remedy past racist practices. That is,
we would provide another reason for doing the right thing.10 Therefore, following the view of Human Rights Watch, recognizing the tribe’s
right to whale and allowing the Makah to whale would be an acceptable form of reparations, as it would be the “right thing to do” because of
the past racist practices against the tribe. The function of reparations has also been expressed as to “render justice by removing or redressing
the consequences of the wrongful acts . . . .”11 As applied to the Makah,
the past wrongful acts by the United States
government of eradicating the tribe’s culture12 will be redressed through acknowledgment and support
of the tribe’s whaling, which is a traditional component of their culture.13 The phenomenon of victims of historical
injustices stepping forward to seek compensation is on the rise. In some instances these groups are also looking for new rights: Victims of
imperialism, from Native Americans in the United States to numerous groups in the
Fourth World, are demanding
compensation for past injustices and have added dimensions to the notion of restitution by calling for
new rights in place of lost traditions. These new rights run the gamut from casinos to mineral extraction and fishing treaties.14 It
is essential to note that the Makah are not seeking new rights at all, but simply want to reinstate the cultural tradition of whaling, a legal right
reserved to the tribe.15 B. Attempts to Address Past Wrongs to Native Americans 1. Establishment of the Indian Claims Commission
One attempt by the United States to address the wrongs suffered by Native Americans came in the form of a congressionally created “quasijudicial tribunal” to deal with specific claims of Native Americans. 16 “[I]n 1946, Congress created the Indian Claims Commission . . . to
adjudicate the Indian tribe lawsuits pending against the federal government.”17 Although the Commission “had authority to award monetary
relief” to the tribes, it has
been criticized as inherently flawed because “the Commission was structurally
precluded from offering redress for the most important Indian claim—the return of Indian lands.”18 This
fact clearly emphasizes the importance Native Americans place on possessing what they once had, versus receiving a mere monetary
payment.19 It has been observed that the
Commission’s “decision to equate justice with money . . . was the most
serious flaw in the Commission’s design and implementation.”20 The Commission eventually dissolved in 1978, and many believe a fatal
flaw was Congress’s failure to incorporate the Native American’s view into the Commission’s enabling legislation.21 This view, “the victim’s
perspective,” held the relationship of people to land in the highest regard.22 Beyond the failure to meet the expectations of the victims, the
Commission was ineffective for other reasons. The
Commission was overly formalistic and “results oriented” at the
expense of developing an understanding of the cultural considerations impacting meaningful
reparation.23 For example, the Commission sometimes “engaged in formalistic analysis even with respect to moral claims.”24 This
misguided approach led to “some decisions [calling for] redress in ways that were actually more harmful than helpful to [the] claimants.”25
Ultimately, attempts were made to assimilate the Native Americans into mainstream society.26 Collectively, the inefficiency of the Commission
stems from its attempt to impose a formalistic system on a culture that it did not understand. This lack of understanding of the cultures and
beliefs of Native Americans also applies to the Makah’s situation.27 2. Formal Apologies Native Americans have successfully persuaded
Congress to formally apologize for past egregious crimes as a form of legislative restitution. 28 The establishment of the Chief Big Foot National
Memorial Park and the Wounded Knee National Memorial are examples of such apologies.29 In these instances, the government “‘apologized’
for the ‘incident’ that ‘occurred’ on December 29, 1890, in which U.S. soldiers wounded or killed more than three hundred Indians even though,
as the legislation states, they were ‘unarmed and entitled to protection of their rights.’”30 Unfortunately, the tribe’s economic claims for
restitution were ignored because “the apology limited compensation to the establishment of the memorial and park.”31 In this instance, the
tribe’s benefit
is limited to the outward recognition of the past wrongs; any current needs or wants of the
tribe are ignored. In the Makah’s case, a formal apology would be insignificant to the tribe because it
would not provide the tribe with the same opportunity for cultural revival in the way that whaling
does.32
AT: Topicality
AT: T---Development---2AC
Whaling is a sector of development of natural resources that counts as commercial
fisheries.
Scheiber 98 (Harry N., “Historical memory, cultural claims, and environmental ethics in the
jurisprudence of¶ whaling regulation”, http://www.egov.ufsc.br/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/3311841784-1-PB.pdf //RJ)
In addition to invoking the freedom-of-the-seas doctrine, the pro-whaling nations¶ rely upon the
language in the 1946 Convention itself to support their claim that¶ whaling was meant by the framers of
the IWC to be viewed as an ordinary commercial¶ fishery. Thus the Preamble of the Convention states that
it is the desire of the¶ signatory nations ‘‘to ensure proper and effective conservation and development
of¶ whale stocks’’. Although it explicitly states that the industry’s history ‘‘has seen¶ over-fishing of one area after another and of one
species of whale after another2, ’’¶ so that protection of all species is necessary, the Preamble asserts as a goal of the IWC¶
the protection of whale stocks so as to ‘‘permit increases in the number of whales¶ which may be
captured without endangering these natural resources.’’7
Ocean development is utilization of resourcs, spaces, and energy
Japan Institute of Navigation 98 ~ http://members.j-navigation.org/e-committee/Ocean.htm //RJ
¶
Discussions of "Ocean Engineering" are inseparable from "Ocean Development." ¶ What
is ocean development? Professor
oceans for mankind, while ¶
Kiyomitsu Fujii of the University of ¶ Tokyo defines ocean development in his book as using
preserving the beauty of nature. In the light of its significance and meaning, ¶ the term "Ocean Development" is not necessarily a
new term. Ocean development ¶ is broadly classified into three aspects: (1) Utilization of ocean resources, ¶
(2) Utilization of ocean spaces, and (3) Utilization of ocean energy. ¶ Among these, development of marine
resources has long been established as ¶ fishery science and technology, and shipping, naval architecture
and port/harbour ¶ construction are covered by the category of using ocean spaces , which have ¶ grown
into industries in Japan. When the Committee initiated its activities, however,¶ the real concept that caught attention was a new type of
ocean development, ¶ which was outside the coverage that conventional terms had implied.
Whales are living resources.
Boncheva 11 (Simona Vasileva, International Economic Consulting Academic Supervisor at the
Institute for Cetacean Research, “Whales as natural resources”, http://pure.au.dk/portal-asbstudent/files/34355886/Whales_as_natural_resources.pdf)
This master thesis came as a response to the today‘s heated debates over the utilization ¶ of great
whales as resources and the value different cultures attach to them. Relevant to ¶ many endangered
species, the polemic over lethal consumption of the living resources ¶ or their non-lethal (and nonconsumptive) utilization raises the question of what are the ¶ factors which leads to their extinction.
Applying the assumptions for countries‘ ¶ specialization and gains from trade based on factor
endowments which underlie ¶ Hechsher- Ohlin theory, the thesis shows that the first assumption still
holds when ¶ applied to highly migratory cetacean species. However, when trade is opened up for ¶
resources suffering from ―tragedy of common‖ externality the classical assumption for ¶ gain from free
trade do not hold. As already explained the reasons are uncontrolled ¶ access and harvest of whales and
impossibility of a nation to internalize the ¶ conservation effort she will make over the common
resource. ¶ Taking Iceland as an example further confirms the fact that free trade can exacerbate the ¶
harvest of renewable resources. The country has limited prospects for growth in the ¶ local market,
therefore not the resumption of commercial whaling but the permission of ¶ trade will determine the
exploitation path. Yet the thesis shows that owing to ¶ international agreements such as ICRW and CITES
and numbers of domestic and trade ¶ regulations the depletion resulting from trade is preventable. ¶ In
this respect if , following the example of Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations ¶ Framework Convention
on Climate Changes from 1997, the property rights over whales ¶ stocks are assigned to either whaling or
non-whaling nations, and they have the opportunity to trade these rights it will make feasible
sustainable harvest and ¶ stabilization of the cetacean population. In this case, people can trade their
rights to kill ¶ whales (or generate externalities) in the same way as they trade the rights to produce ¶
and possess ordinary goods. They will also have the incentive to preserve the resources ¶ owing to their
ownership interests. ¶ Furthermore, Professor Clevo Wislon from Queensland University of Technology, ¶
Australia said: ―... if the countries for whom whales are worth more alive than dead ¶ charged a small
levy of say five dollars (4.6 U.S. dollars) per whale-watching tourist, ¶ whale-watching countries could
compensate those for whom a dead whale is worth ¶ more than a live one". ¶ Humans are dependent on
the natural endowments living on the Earth, therefore their ¶ use should be outcome of wisdom
management rather emotional and political objects.
AT: T---Its---2AC
Indian tribes “belong” to the USFG – they don’t have sovereignty of their own
Prygoski 1 (Philip J, professor of law, Thomas M Cooley Law School, 02.01.01, “From Marshall to
Marshall: The Supreme Court's changing stance on tribal sovereignty”,
http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_ind
ex/marshall.html, Accessed 07.22.14)//LD
**We do not endorse any of the decisions made by the Supreme Court referenced in this article.
Chief Justice Marshall ruled for the Court that Indian tribes could not
convey land to private parties without the consent of the federal government. The Court reasoned that, after conquest by the
Europeans and the establishment of the United States, the rights of the tribes to complete sovereignty were diminished, and the
tribes' power to dispose of their land was denied. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831)), the Court addressed the question of whether the Cherokee
Nation was a "foreign state" and, therefore, could sue the State of Georgia in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. Chief Justice Marshall ruled that federal courts had no jurisdiction over
such a case because Indian tribes were merely "domestic dependent nations" existing "in a state of pupilage. Their relation
to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian ." The statements by the Court in Cherokee Nation established the premise that Indian nations do not
possess all of the attributes of sovereignty that the word "nation" normally implies. Indian nations are not "foreign," but rather
exist within the geographical boundaries of the United States, which necessarily limits their sovereignty. It would be
In the first of these cases, Johnson v. McIntosh (21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823)),
unacceptable for an Indian nation located within the United States to enter into treaties with other countries, or to cede Indian land to foreign countries (to have a French or German enclave in the middle of Montana, for example.)
Its means associated with
Oxford Dictionary 10 (“Of”, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/its?view=uk)
Pronunciation:/ɪts/¶ possessive determiner¶ belonging to or
camera on its side he chose the area for its atmosphere
associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified:turn the
AT: Counterplans
AT: TERA---Counterplan---2AC
1. Permutation – do both
2. Narratives DA – a discursive presentation of indigenous narratives creates
spaces for resistance against neocolonialism – that’s Roberts. All of their
solvency advocates speak from the standpoint of white privelege – by giving
gifts to the natives, they steal their subjectivity and pretend to be the saviors of
the natives – that’s the same colonialist logic that led to the massacre of natives
in the 18th century – that’s Stevens.
3. Makah DA – counterplan doesn’t resolve starvation and structural violence
against the Makah; they’re also suffering from severe poverty which means
they won’t be competitive in the renewables market – that’s
4. Reparations DA – counterplan masks over historical suppression of indigenous
rights by giving them new ones – ignores the cultural importance of whaling
historically – means communities will always be fractured as opposed to
unified.
5. Managerialism DA –
Alternative energy sources are just the latest form of resource managerialism –
attempting to extract energy from nature in an input/output frame of mind to keep an
unsustainable society going just a little bit longer
Luke 03 (Timothy W., University Distinguished Professor of Political Science in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences as well as
Program Chair of the Government and International Affairs Program, School of Public and International Affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute ,
“Eco-Managerialism: Environmental Studies as a Power/Knowledge Formation”, Aurora Online, 2003,
http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/view/79/91)
Resource managerialism can be read as the essence of today's enviro-mentality. While voices in favour of
conservation can be found in Europe early in the 19th century, there is a self-reflexive establishment of this stance in the United States in the
late 19th century. From the 1880's to the 1920's, one saw the closing of the western frontier. And whether one
looks at John
Muir'spreservationist programs or Gifford Pinchot's conservationist code, there is a spreading
awareness of modern industry's power to deplete nature's stock of raw materials, which sparks widespread worries about the need to find systems for conserving their supply from such unchecked
exploitation. Consequently, nature's stocks of materials are rendered down to resources, and the
presumptions of resourcification become conceptually and operationally well entrenched in
conservationist philosophies. The fundamental premises of resource managerialism in many ways have not changed over the past
century. At best, this code of practice has only become more formalized in many governments' applications
and legal interpretations. Working with the managerial vision of the second industrial revolution, which tended to empower technical
experts like engineers or scientists, who had gotten their degrees from agricultural schools, mining schools, technology schools like the one I
work at, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, which prides itself as they say on producing the worker bees of industry. Or, on the shop floor and
professional managers, one found corporate executives and financial officers in the main office, who are of course trained in business schools.
Put together, resource managerialism
casts corporate administrative frameworks over nature in order to
find the supplies needed to feed the economy and provision society through national and international
markets. As scientific forestry, range management, and mineral extraction took hold in the U.S. during this era, an ethos of battling scarcity
guided professional training, corporate profit making, and government policy. As a result, the operational agendas of what was
called sustained yield were what directed the resource managerialism of the 20th century. In reviewing
the enabling legislation of key federal agencies, one quickly discovers that the values and practices of
resourcification anchor their institutional missions in a sustained yield philosophy. As Cortner and Moote
observe, the statutory mandates for both the Forest Service, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, and the
National Forest Management Act, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, for example, specifically direct these agencies to employ a multiple use sustained
yield approach to resource management. More often than not, however, these agencies adjusted their multiple use concept to
correspond to their primary production objective -- timber in the case of the Forest Service, grazing in terms of the Bureau of Land
Management. Although sustained help is not specifically mentioned in the legislated mandate of agencies such as the National Parks Service or
the Bureau of Reclamation, they too have traditionally managed for maximum sustained yield of a single resource - visitor use in the case of the
parks, water supply in the case of water resources. So
the ethos of resourcification imagined nature as a vast
input/output system. The mission statements of sustained yield pushed natural resource management
towards realizing the maximum maintainable output up to or past even the point where one reached
ecological collapse, which in turn of course caused wide-spread ecological degradation, which leads to
the project of rehabilitation managerialism.
Eco-managerialism drives reduction of nature to mere resource – it’s the root cause of
environmental exploitation and worldwide wage inequality
Luke 03 (Timothy W., University Distinguished Professor of Political Science in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences as well as
Program Chair of the Government and International Affairs Program, School of Public and International Affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute ,
“Eco-Managerialism: Environmental Studies as a Power/Knowledge Formation”, Aurora Online, 2003,
http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/view/79/91)
So to conclude, each of these wrinkles in the record of eco-managerialism should give its supporters pause.
The more adaptive and collaborative dimensions of eco-managerial practice suggest its advocates truly are seeking to develop some post
extractive approach to ecosystem management that might respect the worth and value of the survival of non-human life in its environments,
and indeed some are. Nonetheless, it would appear that the commitments
of eco-managerialism to sustainability maybe
are not that far removed from older programs for sustained yield, espoused under classical industrial
regimes. Even rehabilitation and restoration managerialism may not be as much post extractive in their managerial stance, as much as they
are instead proving to be a more attractive form of ecological exploitation. Therefore, the newer iterations of ecomanagerialism may only kick into a new register, one in which a concern for environmental renewability
or ecological restoration just opens new domains for the eco-managerialists to operate within. To even
construct the problem in this fashion, however, nature still must be reduced to the encirclement of space
and matter in national as well as global economies - to a system of systems, where flows of material and
energy can be dismantled, redesigned, and assembled anew to produce resources efficiently, when and
where needed, in the modern marketplace. As an essentially self contained system of biophysical systems, nature seen
this way is energies, materials, in sites that are repositioned by eco-managerialism as stocks of
manageable resources. Human beings, supposedly all human beings, can realize great material goods for sizeable numbers of people if
the eco-managerialists succeed. Nonetheless, eco-managerialism fails miserably with regard to the political. Instead,
its work ensures that greater material and immaterial bads will also be inflicted upon even larger
numbers of other people, who do not reside in or benefit from the advanced national economies that
basically have monopolized the use of the world's resources. This continues because eco-managerialism lets those
remarkable material benefits accrue at only a handful of highly developed regional municipal and national sites. Those who do not
benefit, in turn are left living on one dollar or two dollars a day, not able, of course, at that rate of pay,
to pay for eco-managerialism. So I'll stop there.
Renewables are subsumed within the neoliberal system and undermine native
sovereignty and local development goals.
McAfee and Shapiro 10 (Kathleen and Elizabeth, 'Payments for Ecosystem Services in Mexico: Nature,
Neoliberalism, Social Movements, and the State', Annals of the Association of American Geographer,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045601003794833)
Prominent advocates of payments for ecosystem services (PES) contend that markets in biodiversity,
carbon storage, and hydrological services can produce both conservation and sustainable development.
In Mexico’s national PES programs, however, conceived as models of market-based management,
efficiency criteria have clashed with antipoverty goals and an enduring developmental-state legacy. Like
other projects for commodi- fication of nature, Mexico’s PES is a hybrid of market-like mechanisms,
state regulations, and subsidies. It has been further reshaped by social movements mobilized in
opposition to neoliberal restructuring. These activists see ecosystem services as coproduced by nature
and campesino communities. Rejecting the position of World Bank economists, they insist that the
values of ecosystems derive less from the market prices of their services than from their contributions to
peasant livelihoods, biodiversity, and social benefits that cannot be quantified or sold. These divergent
conceptualizations reflect contrasting understandings of the roles of agriculture and of the state in
sustainable development. The Mexican case exposes contradictions within neoliberal environmental
discourse based on binary categories of nature and society. It suggests that conservation policies in the
global South, if imposed from the North and framed by neoliberal logic, are likely to clash with state
agendas and local development goals.
Status quo solves the counterplan
Burger 11/18 (Andrew, 13, “DOE Funds Clean Energy Projects on Native American Tribal Lands”
http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/11/doe-funds-clean-energyenergy-efficiency-projects-nativeamerican-tribal-lands/, Accessed 7/22 //RJ)
Following through on President Obama’s historic National Climate Change Action Plan, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) announced it is investing over $7 million in Native American Tribal Nations’
clean energy projects to help build “stronger, more resilient communities that are better prepared for a
changing climate.Ӧ Fostering clean energy and energy efficiency gains from Alaska to New York and
southwest to Arizona, the nine projects will not only enhance Native American communities’ resilience
to climate change and their energy security, they will also enhance environmental quality, reduce
expenses and create new green job and business opportunities, the DOE asserted during the 2013 White
House Tribal Nations Conference, which was held November 13, the fifth such event during the Obama
presidency.¶
Native Renewable development would by subsidized by the federal government and
integrated into the market system.
Orrick 09 (top-ranked bond council firm, “Financing Renewable Energy Development on Native
American Lands,” http://www.orrick.com/Events-and-Publications/Documents/1720.pdf //RJ)
Tribes would earn some amount of royalties ¶ or rent from making sites available. Royalties ¶ or rent would
reflect the amount of revenue ¶ generated from the sale of energy. Renewable ¶ energy projects may also generate
certificates ¶ or credits that could be sold or conveyed to ¶ purchasers of electricity or other third parties
¶ to enhance the overall economics of such ¶ projects. These include so-called “renewable ¶ energy credits” and greenhouse
gas reduction ¶ credits, each of which is part of programs ¶ under development. Renewable projects could ¶ also generate jobs for members of
a tribe. ¶ In addition, the tribe or tribal members could ¶ play a role in the construction, development ¶ and operation of the renewable
projects, for ¶ which additional fees might be earned. The
¶ amount of these benefits would depend on ¶ the size and
cost of building and operating ¶ particular projects.¶ What Effect Would Such ¶ Projects Have on Scenery and ¶ the
Environment?¶ As with any development, there is a ¶ possibility that renewable energy facilities ¶ will have
adverse effects on the environment . ¶ Renewable energy projects would be subject ¶ to review and
approval under federal ¶ environmental law, administered by BIA, and ¶ would be subject to the
approval of tribes ¶ based on their own internal review process. ¶ In environmental reviews, effects on birds, ¶ bats and
other wildlife, habitat and aesthetics ¶ are usually considered. Wind projects ¶ involve very tall towers and rotating windmill ¶ blades visible for
great distances that may ¶ be a concern for local communities. Visual ¶ simulations are used to illustrate the effects ¶ such projects would have
so that the Tribe, ¶ BIA and other involved parties may better ¶ decide whether certain effects are acceptable.
AT: Critiques
AT: Narratives K
AT: Narratives K
The presentation of the 1AC is a continuation of Makah literary narratives. Exposing
neocolonialism in this instance is the most effective way to resist it.
Roberts 10
(Christina Roberts is a professor of English @ Seattle University, “Treaty Rights Ignored: Neocolonialism and the Makah Whale Hunt,” The
Kenyon Review. 32.1 (Winter 2010): p78. Gale Academic)//BB
For Indigenous populations around the world, the last few centuries have been marked by colonization
and economic, political, and cultural oppression. A few Indigenous populations have narrowly escaped
subjugation, but these communities must often fight economic and political battles to keep rights to their lands
and traditions. For other Indigenous communities that do not have access to the resources necessary for economic and cultural survival, it is seemingly only
a matter of time before their lands are taken or their traditions are lost, but this is not the only possible outcome. Some of the most important ways
that Indigenous communities have resisted colonialism and braved the complexity of neocolonialism are through
the oral tradition and contemporary literary narratives. It is absolutely essential that Indigenous tribal
narratives continue to reflect the significance of cultural traditions, and it is critical that individuals
outside of Indigenous communities respect these narratives . Many of the current economic, political, and cultural disputes
affecting Indigenous communities stem from neocolonialist attitudes about economic resources and
cultural traditions. Neocolonialism appears in different guises, and neocolonialist rhetoric is rampant in discourse about Indigenous populations and
underdeveloped nations. Even the relatively recent shift from using "third world" to "underdeveloped" signifies the manifestation of terminology that reinforces a
certain economic neocolonialism. The
rhetoric of neocolonialism must be exposed to ensure that Indigenous
communities are not subjected to new forms of colonization, which threaten cultural survival. Moreover,
individuals should be sensitive to the persuasive and subtle nature of neocolonialism because the rhetoric of neocolonialism is rampantly apparent in the media,
seriously detrimental to Indigenous youth, and undermines Indigenous tribal narratives. While there are numerous examples of neocolonialism in the world today,
the focus of this paper will be an analysis of the use of neocolonialist rhetoric in discussions about the Makah Nation. In the last decade, the
Makah
Nation has been in the process of revitalizing its whaling traditions, and the discourse about this
revitalization reveals racist attitudes toward Indigenous peoples and the potential consequences of
damaging neocolonialist rhetoric. One might not expect the state of Washington or the Pacific Northwest to be
places that support neocolonialism, but the manifestation of neocolonialist rhetoric in a seemingly
progressive part of the United States is a testament to the ubiquitous nature of neocolonialism. It is my hope
that this discussion will reveal the rhetorical strategies that individuals employ to criticize the revitalization of the Makah whale-hunting tradition, while also
illustrating how this rhetoric presents dangerous neocolonialist points of view that undermine tribal sovereignty. A Public Outcry The whale hunts of 1999 and 2007
generated a great deal of public discourse, especially in the Seattle metropolitan area. Headlines and lengthy articles in the local newspapers, the
Seattle
Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer , demonstrated the significance of these events for individuals who resided within
the Pacific Northwest and beyond. In particular, the rhetoric of the letters to the editor reveals the public's spectrum of opinions in the days leading up to the 1999
hunt and after the disastrous hunt of 2007. Despite the difference in each hunt's circumstances, the
letters to the editor often employ
neocolonialist rhetoric to argue for an end to the Makah whale-hunting tradition, blatantly disregarding
tribal sovereignty and treaty rights. After the hunts, many letters to the editor rejected the validity of the Makah whale-hunting tradition and
expressed abhorrence toward the Makah Nation. In one letter following the 1999 whale hunt, the writer exclaims, "[t]he murder of a whale by the Makahs has, if
anything, hastened the demise of this culture. If they as a people are foolish enough to believe that killing whales will make them great, they are already beyond
saving. I, for one, will not mourn their passing" (Geneva). The
intentional use of the word "murder" to express the death of
the whale is only one small example of rhetoric that employs neocolonialist strategies. In a strictly legal context,
the word murder describes the premeditated and unlawful killing of one human being by another, but the use of the word murder to describe
the killing of a whale by Makah hunters reveals a shift in the word's use that uses a form of cultural
superiority to discredit the whale-hunting tradition. Furthermore, the letter openly expresses the author's disregard for all Makah
people by writing that they "are already beyond saving," and he "will not mourn their passing" (Geneva). The letter superciliously emphasizes that Makah people
are in need of "saving," which reveals the author's condescending attitude toward the Makah Nation, but it also illustrates public sentiments about Indigenous
traditions that conflict with beliefs and views of a majority culture. The Seattle Times also included letters to the editor that used evolutionary terms to repudiate
the 1999 Makah whale hunt and letters that alleged whale-hunting traditions were no longer necessary. One severe letter to the editor suggests that the Makah
whale hunt is a sign of de-evolution: "Quite frankly, to re-establish this practice for the sake of restoring a culture's tradition or heritage reminds me of the
resurgence of racial hatred that seems to be occurring around the world. It is a sign of de-evolution. That same movement bodes ill for all ethnic groups, including
the Makahs" (Trybyszewski). The author creates an unfair and culturally skewed parallel between the resurgence of racial hatred and the restoration of cultural
traditions in an attempt to discredit the Makah Nation. In creating this parallel, the author reinforces cultural imperialism and ignores the pervasive nature of racial
and cultural discrimination that creates conflict in the world. Furthermore, by suggesting that there has been a "resurgence" of racial hatred, the author
conveniently disregards the evidence that points to the persistence of racial hatred and reveals an historical ignorance about racism. The author ends the letter with
the following: "I, for one, will greatly scrutinize any attempts by any particular groups who seek to re-establish killing in the name of 'tradition.' The argument that
'people don't understand the Makah culture' is irrelevant. Everyone understands what killing an innocent animal is." The author emphasizes the word "killing,"
which reveals one slanted perspective on the death of an animal, and dismisses the Makah culture as "irrelevant." These sentiments impose unwarranted values
and beliefs on the Makah Nation and present views that endanger Indigenous tribal narratives. Many individuals in the United States are consumers who accept
systems of food production that disrespect animal life and deplete natural resources, and very few people have to directly experience "what killing an innocent
animal is" but this is not the case for the Makah Nation. By targeting a small nation's traditions instead of confronting national issues of food production and the
degradation of natural resources, this letter successfully employs neocolonialist rhetoric to discredit the rights and cultural narratives of the Makah Nation. Many
letters following the 1999 hunt also used economic pressures to discredit the Makah whale-hunting tradition. One writer wrote, "[t]he real tragedy is not just the
death of one, five or fifty whales. It is that a native tribe could have evolved into a people who practice the respect of intelligent life that they preach, but instead
chose to needlessly continue hunting sentient creatures for tradition's sake" (DeCordoba). According to this writer, the Makah Nation is "needlessly" practicing its
whale-hunting traditions and has failed to "evolve." The author ends the letter by declaring that "You'll never see my business at a reservation--casino or otherwise"
a statement that only reinforces the ignorant assumptions that many individuals have about Indigenous communities across western Washington (DeCordoba). For
one, this individual uses economic pressure to express dissatisfaction with the Makah Nation, assuming that a significant cultural tradition has a price and can be
purchased, but the letter also economically condemns all tribal casinos for the actions of one group. This type of neocolonialist racism presents a significant threat
to all Indigenous communities and tribal nations. Economic
domination is a major issue that will continue to present
obstacles to Indigenous communities, which is why it is essential to expose these forms of
neocolonialism and recognize the continued significance of Indigenous tribal narratives. In the days following the
1999 Makah whale hunt, Jerry Large, a veteran columnist for the Seattle Times , wrote about the hypocrisy embedded within the language used by protestors. His
weekly columns often deal with issues that demand multiple points of view, and this article is no exception. In "Amid Concern for a Whale, Logic Is Sunk," published
three days after the hunt, Large reflected on the significance of the hunt: Monday the Makahs killed their first whale in generations. Those members of the tribe
who wanted to resume the hunt after a 70-year hiatus saw it as a way to reconnect with their cultural roots. I suspect that what
they really wanted
to harpoon was cultural domination. Members of the culture most responsible for the decline of whales and the demise of untold other
species, not to mention the decimation of the Indians, chastised the Makahs for their incivility. The sight of yelling protesters made me grind my teeth. (D1) Large
points out that individual members
of the majority culture, a culture more responsible for the decline in the
whale population and degradation of the natural environment than the Makah Nation, are among the first to
"chastise" the Makah Nation for revitalizing a cultural tradition. After publishing this column, Large received hundreds of
negative responses that only served to reinforce his points. In his response to the letters, Large writes, "There are so many other issues that I have to wonder why
different views of morality, diversity, history , all of those
defining bits of society , of our identities, are at play here and that unleashes a lot of emotion" (F1). The emotional responses to the hunt
this one so captivates people. Somehow who we are is being tested. Our
and to Large's column reveal a spectrum of responses, but they also expose subtle elements of neocolonialism that can easily escape detection. As Large notes,
individuals who argue for the need for the Makah Nation to relinquish its whale-hunting traditions often express racist and bigoted views that continue to reinforce
cultural domination. The discourse about the Makah whale hunt allows a glimpse into public sentiments and offers a possibility to explore pervasive attitudes about
Indigenous traditions and rights. The failed hunt in September of 2007 generated similar responses in the forms of letters to the editor. Even though there is not
sufficient time to illustrate the various rhetorical strategies that writers employed after the 2007 hunt, these letters used strategies similar to the 1999 hunt to
denounce the Makah whale-hunting tradition. Individuals used cultural, legal, and economic pressures to argue for the eradication of the whale-hunting tradition
once again. One writer revealed that [i]t is really challenging to understand the benefit (both in economic terms and in terms of the Makah sense of identity) of
whaling, regardless of which treaties were signed. If you take away the legal aspects, there is still the issue of whether it is right and reasonable in the 21st century.
Several generations have passed since whaling was banned. (Johnson) The writer admits a lack of knowledge about the importance of the whale-hunting tradition to
the Makah Nation, but he or she also expresses that the hunt is not "right" or "reasonable in the 21st century." The easy manner in which this writer dismisses the
Makah Nation's treaty rights reveals the significant threat of neocolonialist rhetoric. Furthermore, the writer does not recognize the persistence of tribal narratives
or their importance to Indigenous communities, which denotes a point of view that undermines tribal sovereignty through a disavowal of Indigenous tribal
narratives. To be fair, many letters to the editor also mentioned the importance of Makah cultural traditions and treaty rights, but these letters and perspectives
were often lost in the overwhelmingly negative response to the failed hunt. A brief examination of the public responses to the Makah whale hunts demonstrates
how neocolonialist rhetoric is used to reinforce arguments against Indigenous cultural traditions. (1) Many public voices represented in the Seattle Times reflect
ideological beliefs of the larger nation, and individuals employ neocolonialist rhetoric to disregard the rights of the Makah Nation. Even though these voices
represent only a fraction of the public opinion in regards to the Makah whale-hunting tradition, these perspectives reveal pervasive and dangerous attitudes toward
Indigenous communities and their traditions. Consequences Indigenous
peoples of the Pacific Northwest practiced traditions that have
been dramatically affected by aggressive settlement and the commodification of natural resources, and they now must confront attempts to
challenge their traditions and rights through the use of pervasive neocolonialism. The fact that the Makah Nation is
placed in a position where it has to obtain permission from local, national, and even international systems to hunt a whale is an indication of the current
complexities of maintaining treaty rights and certain cultural traditions. The often-extreme responses to the Makah whale hunt directly threaten the Makah
Nation's tribal sovereignty, and their treaty rights are targeted by blatant neocolonialism and anti-Indigenous sentiments. Indigenous
communities
have beliefs and narratives distinct to their own histories and traditions, and yet they are still held to the
standards of other nations and individuals. In addition to expertly navigating the legal system in order to maintain certain cultural beliefs
and traditions, many Indigenous communities face added pressures to conform to the ideological structures of dominant cultures and succumb to hegemony. In
order to continue practicing cultural traditions that do not resonate with beliefs of dominant cultures, Indigenous communities are also under pressure to validate
their cultures through ongoing Indigenous tribal narratives that demonstrate the importance of specific traditions and practices. Indigenous
tribal
narratives are precious and vital to a collective understanding of the world and its history, and these
narratives need to be more visible and available to deflect neocolonialism. While ceremonial knowledge
should be respected, it cannot be respected by individuals who do not understand its importance. By either ignoring or
being unaware of the value of these narratives, individuals perpetuate the colonialist agendas of the
past and embrace forms of neocolonialism. Neocolonialist rhetoric will continue to manifest whenever a
majority culture does not approve of Indigenous customs. Yet, individuals who reside within the United States of America must see
themselves as participants in a global world, now more than ever before .
The U.S. and its citizens have an obligation to the
Indigenous peoples within the United States and its territories who are still experiencing the effects of
colonization. Neocolonialism and the use of blatant neocolonialist rhetoric further reinforce the wounds of colonization and marginalize Indigenous
populations through economic, legal, cultural, and political oppression. It is time that neocolonialism is exposed so that Indigenous
communities can be freed from colonialism in all of its forms, and Indigenous tribal narratives offer one
possible defense against neocolonialism in all of its forms.
Narratives Good
Narratives of oppression are key to education and political change
Murad 10, Fatima Zahra Habib Mohammed Baqir Murad, nearest date given is 2010, Murad has a master’s
degree in communications and education from the University of Ontario, “NARRATIVES OF HOPE IN ANTIOPPRESSION EDUCATION: WHAT ARE ANTI-RACISTS FOR?”
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/25650/6/HabibMohammedBaqirMurad_Fatima_Z_201011_MA
_thesis.pdf, NN
This project explores the connections between the worlds we hope for and the worlds we help create.
Over the course of several months, I conducted three sets of narrative interviews with three antioppression education facilitators, and a self-study with myself. Using narrative inquiry through a
specifically anti-colonial lens as my method of analysis, I worked in partnership with my interview
participants to draw meaning out of our interviews. Growing from these discussions, this thesis explores
the work that discourses of hope do in our practices as facilitators of education for change. How do the
things that we learn to hope for inform the way we teach, and the possibilities that are allowed in, or
locked out, of our classrooms? In problematizing certain functions of certain discourses of hope, this
study also explores the possibilities of anti-colonial hopings as a process of generating decolonizing
dreams through education for change.
Dialogue over structural issues such as oppression is key to reforming the
system
Murad 10, Fatima Zahra Habib Mohammed Baqir Murad, nearest date given is 2010, Murad has a master’s
degree in communications and education from the University of Ontario, “NARRATIVES OF HOPE IN ANTIOPPRESSION EDUCATION: WHAT ARE ANTI-RACISTS FOR?”
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/25650/6/HabibMohammedBaqirMurad_Fatima_Z_201011_MA
_thesis.pdf, NN
I heard about anti-oppression workshops for the first time in my second year of university. Having
become disillusioned with institutional schooling, I was looking for new spaces in which to situate my
hopeful resistance when I stumbled into a very strange and decidedly unwieldy relationship with the
concepts of anti-oppression and community education. I was a new hire at Trent University’s Ontario
Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG), where anti-oppression training was mandatory for all staff,
board members and volunteers. I arrived at my first board meeting excited and nervous. Staff members
were encouraged to attend board meetings and ask orienting questions of our employers and each
other. Yet I had never worked with a non-profit organization before, and the language of Turtle Island
organizing was still very new to me.1 With all the staff present that evening, the board members began
throwing around dates for that year’s anti-oppression training. I had never heard of the term
“antioppression” before, nor had I ever attended a workshop of any kind. I was interested, but also
determined not to let my ignorance show in case it counted against me with the board and my fellow
staff members. We arrived at three possible dates for the day-long workshop. I spoke for the first time
that evening, requesting that we scrap one of the possible dates, as I would not be able to attend. An
awkward silence followed my 1 Turtle Island is known in colonial terms as “Canada” or “North America.”
I refer to “North America” through this paper as Turtle Island, a term used by anti-colonialists to
recognize Indigenous peoples and their claims to this land. This was not, however, a term that I was
familiar with as I was first coming to activism on this land. 4 request. The all-white staff and board
looked down at their papers, or up at the ceiling. Then one of the co-ordinators laughed nervously and
said, “Well, we didn’t think you’d need the training! You’re the only person of colour at the PIRG!”
Foolishly perhaps, I laughed too and let the subject drop. I wasn’t comfortable enough with the activist
community socially, and with my own politics personally, to feel confident responding with some of the
questions I had about their assumption. What if they had only hired me because I was supposed to know
about this anti-oppression thing? I needed the money, so I kept my mouth shut. I did a lot of shutting up
over the course of that year. Every time an issue of oppression came up – which it inevitably did – I fell
silent. I had been accustomed to the language of rights and justice I had been taught by my politicallyconscious family, not oppression and privilege, and although I felt like I knew very little, I knew enough
to understand that these were two separate things. Ironically, despite my ignorance of the subject, I felt
positioned as the expert on what anti-oppression may or may not be, or should and should not be.
Through the year of my contract, other young activists came to me with questions that seemed to me
very odd: Is it ok for me to use a hip hop song in my performance at the drag show if I’m white?
Everyone says it isn’t, but it’s the perfect song!; Do you think this image is right for this poster? All the
other posters already have white men on them, but then I don’t want to put a person of colour on it
because I’m white and that might be fetishistic! What do you think? I had no concept of how to respond
to these perplexing questions. I couldn’t understand why people would agonize over the ethics of a
problem for hours if they could already sense clearly that they were crossing a boundary. More than
that, I had no idea why or how I had become the resident 5 anti-oppression expert. Worrying over losing
my job and wanting to be useful, I began reading up on what this strange phenomenon might be.
Public advocacies of oppression and narratives is critical to prevent continuing oppression
Murad 10, Fatima Zahra Habib Mohammed Baqir Murad, nearest date given is 2010, Murad has a master’s
degree in communications and education from the University of Ontario, “NARRATIVES OF HOPE IN ANTIOPPRESSION EDUCATION: WHAT ARE ANTI-RACISTS FOR?”
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/25650/6/HabibMohammedBaqirMurad_Fatima_Z_201011_MA
_thesis.pdf, NN
This history is no less poignant in the context of anti-oppression education. Although anti-racism/antioppression education at its core seeks to challenge and confront the paradigms and discourses that
cause the dichotomy of metropolis and margin, or privilege and oppression, we educators do not live
outside these paradigms. 35 We are shaped by its discourses, and survive and gain voice by the
privileges they grant us. This is generally acknowledged to be a concern among facilitators. In the
valueladen but sometimes vague language that we employ in constructing our curriculum and delivering
our pedagogies – language like “safety,” “empowerment,” and “hope” – there may be meanings we are
not willing to acknowledge. As I have noted in my introductory chapter, available literature on antioppression educational theory and practice employs hope as a central principle. Although
antioppression education has nowhere near the scope of influence that schooling or other statesanctioned systems do, they do incorporate ideas of “right” and “wrong,” conceptions of what is
“desirable” and what should be rejected, notions of hope and stigmas of hopelessness. Even as it
challenges hegemonic narratives, anti-oppression education is a site for the reproduction of social
practices and ideologies. As in other educational settings, sites for anti-oppression education are spaces
within which we teach and learn about how we should feel about things, and in what ways we should
act upon our feelings. Anti-oppression education teaches that hope is possible and resistance is not
futile; however, such hope is not neutral (Ahmed, 2000). Hope, like other social discourses, works along
lines that seek to reproduce certain kinds of social order and that function to regulate actions in the
world regardless of the fact that what we hope for specifically is likely as diverse in its minutiae as we
are as people (Bhabha, 1990). Unlike mainstream discourses of hope, which favour status-quo realities
and urge individuals to change themselves in order to gain happiness or success, anti-oppression
narratives encourage individuals to change systems, in order to foster those same things. However, as
with mainstream hope narratives, meaning is only superficially co36 constructed. Anti-oppression
education does market the notion that instead of changing ourselves in order to fit the system, we must
change the system to fit all of us (Bishop, 2005; Lopes & Thomas, 2006). In actuality, this maxim is not
strictly true; antioppression ideologies have developed their own frameworks and moral claims into
which individuals must fit. This necessitates both personal transformation (in order to qualify to create
structural transformation), and personal buy-in to the frameworks and moral claim of anti-oppression
education and activism. Anti-oppression takes its politics from the school of thought that places the
personal within the political. When it weaves its narratives of hope around transformations, it in fact
necessitates the transformation of the individual in accordance with these conceptions of right and
wrong, and hope and hopelessness, as elements of structural change. Broadly speaking, these moral
claims centre around the unequivocal rejection of privilege through the placement of bodies and beings
on a grid of privilege of oppression.4 This grid forms the underlying basis for the definition of good and
bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral. It locates oppressed bodies closer to an axis of purity and
salvation. Privileged bodies are located on a corresponding axis of evil and contamination. As bodies
move closer to salvation through experiencing or being associated with the purifying power of
oppression, they also move closer to realizing the fulfilment of hope. The grid is clearly, though un-selfconsciously, represented in the work of the author-facilitators I explored in the introduction chapter,
and is widely considered to form the framework that determines whether or not an act is antioppressive (Anner, 1996; 4 Terminology articulated by Magpie. 37 Curry-Stevens, 2003; Lopes &
Thomas, 2006). As facilitators, we are often expected by the organizations that employ us to explain and
embody the values and hopes of the grid. According to this anti-oppression ideology, all actions in the
world are determined as right or wrong based on where they fall on the relational map of privilege and
oppression that the grid provides. If an action reinforces privilege, it is bad. If it challenges privilege and
works in favour of those who fall into the oppressed category, it is good. Theoretically speaking, the grid
is logical, even attractive. Magpie described it as “seductive,” speaking intently of the sense of security,
certainty and righteousness with which it provided her in a tumultuous and difficult time in her life. The
logic of the grid has certainly been a saving grace in my life and work as well, and its empowering uses
have often obscured from me how very damaging the grid can be. Although it is powerful and allows
relations of dominance to be exposed in important ways, it is also overly simplistic and rigidly linear. In
its earnest effort to contextualize everything it serves only to prioritize certain kinds of contexts over
others. It teaches us only how to deal with problems in the face of a clear enemy: people with privilege.
It teaches us nothing about how to negotiate problems among or between people dealing with various
forms of oppression, how to heal ourselves, or how to continue resisting once our anger is burnt up. In
part, this problem arises from activists’ desire to focus on a common enemy, theoretically aiding the
construction of platforms for solidarity.
Perm
Perm solves best - Narratives, stories, and culture are critical for anti-oppression movements and only
sometimes need to be kept invisible – without stories the oppressor will continue to survive
Murad 10, Fatima Zahra Habib Mohammed Baqir Murad, nearest date given is 2010, Murad has a master’s
degree in communications and education from the University of Ontario, “NARRATIVES OF HOPE IN ANTIOPPRESSION EDUCATION: WHAT ARE ANTI-RACISTS FOR?”
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/25650/6/HabibMohammedBaqirMurad_Fatima_Z_201011_MA
_thesis.pdf, NN
Telling Stories: What Can the Work of Anti-Oppression Education be? (Implications) Razack’s (1994) and
Minh-ha’s (1989) critiques are extremely valuable and insightful ones. They are correct in warning
facilitators that we ignore them at our own peril; stories are awesome, powerful, dangerous things, and
I have yet to meet a facilitator who was not burned by their use of narrative at one point or another in
their careers. Even so, and having run into numerous problems with narrative as a workshop tool – from
stubborn silence to intense triggering – I remain convinced that the centring of consensual narrative in
anti-oppression education is pivotal. And, as the experiences 171 of the facilitators I have interviewed
reflect, narrative and the co-construction of group understandings and hopings, however temporary,
are extremely important in creating or sustaining moments outside of the colonial meta-narrative.
Viewed within the framework that Minh-ha and Razack employ, narrative is more trouble than it is
worth. However, if we do not ask narrative to make broad political changes but only to work with
facilitator and participants to affect a space, we open up different, much richer, possibilities for its
work. It may be true that anti-oppression education makes little structural change outside of
institutions. Certainly, it does not make immediate, noticeable or material change in a quantifiable and
consistent fashion. It is true that as it is incorporated into institutions, it is anti-oppression education
that changes visibly, and not the systems which assimilate it. It is certainly true that the use of
narrative in anti-oppression education does not automatically make education anti-oppressive, safe,
or revolutionary. It is true that these narratives, both in the telling and the hearing, are subject to the
same colonization of meaning that they are purported to magically disrupt. But…what would antioppression education look like, what would the use of narrative in community learning spaces look
like, if we tried a different kind of hoping. What would it look like if we did not demand that antioppression education make visible, quantifiable structural change at all? This may seem counterintuitive; anti-oppression is, after all, a political project with clear goals towards shifting or abolishing
existing social and political structures. How can we mobilize education under the principles of antioppression and not expect to make structural change? Magpie and karolyn provide one answer in their
interviews – 172 that anti-oppression education is one aspect of movements for change, but that the
work that anti-oppression education needs to do is qualitatively different from other aspects of
movements for social change. Another (connected) response would be to say that if we centre anticolonial processes in anti-oppression education, we can return emphasis to creating nurturing, healing.
and generative spaces in the moment while also fighting oppositional battles outside the classroom. The
important piece, however, is that seemingly impossible disconnect between the workshop space and
the space for organizing. If we see our work as educators as being to funnel students from open learning
spaces into other, predetermined spaces – whether that be fighting for The Revolution or working in a
bank – then we are not focusing on the people in front of us. We are not co-constructing our agendas,
our understandings and our processes for hoping in our learning spaces. We are simply functioning as
one part of an assembly line. However, if anti-oppression education is viewed as a part of movements
for change because of the work it does in the moment rather than what it promises for the future, we
may see many more possibilities for our work in the present. Anti-oppression education, viewed outside
of the construct of “education for change” can be a powerful force in building roving decolonizing
spaces. As I have explored in chapter five, there are gaps in colonial discourses and facilitators who are
aware of the politics of colonization and oppression can set up camp in these spaces. However, it is
important for us to keep in mind also that there is no one narrative for decolonization, and the context
participants wish to bring into the room is just as important as the contexts we hope they will come to
value. It is important to meet 173 participants where they invite us to, and to deal with the people in
front of us. Doing so in our facilitation may not be a means to change the world, but it is an act outside
of the dominating systems that seek to manipulate our actions for their own purposes. In the final
analysis, no teacher, no matter the subject, can learn for the student. The facilitator exists to facilitate,
not to do for. This must include deciding the terms on which learning will happen, and the ends to which
learning will be put. As community educators, we have the opportunity to facilitate generative
discussions around many diverse narratives and agendas. If we can bring ourselves to view each
narrative and agenda in its own context, rather than rushing to incorporate it into our own contexts and
narratives, we can germinate truly multicentric ways of knowing at a grassroots level. Although this may
not change the material world in ways that are always knowable, it may add more worlds to the one we
already know.
Alt Fails
The alt fails – invisibility allows for the destruction of the native – a voice in
government and the public sphere is key
Verhovek 07, Sam Howe Verhovek, 4/8/07, Verhovek is a times staff writer, “Going native in state capitals,”
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/08/nation/na-nativelegis8, NN
Now Windy Boy moves his considerable frame around the House chamber in the state capitol here,
bargaining and cajoling as a leader of the 10-member American Indian caucus in Montana's state
legislature. The caucus has the highest number of Indians ever elected to the 150-member chamber and
reflects a trend of increased participation by American Indians in state politics across the U.S. When
legislatures convened earlier this year, about 73 Indian, native Alaskan or native Hawaiian lawmakers
were sworn in, the highest number in U.S. history, according to the National Congress of American
Indians, a tribal advocacy group. Windy Boy recalls that while he was growing up on a Chippewa-Cree
Indian reservation in north-central Montana, "there was a lot of skepticism, a lot of cynicism about the
idea of voting at all." Within the system "Some people didn't vote as a point of pride - defiance, even,"
he said. "But that's all changed. There's much more of a sense today that we can work within this
system." The Indian vote was important in several state races in 2006, and turnout on the reservations
and among urban Indians in Montana was key to Democrat Jon Tester's narrow defeat of incumbent
Republican Conrad Burns in the recent U.S. Senate election here. For now, the Indian vote in Montana is
solidly Democratic; all 10 Indian members of the Montana legislature belong to the party. "An Indian
voting Republican is like the chicken voting for the colonel," says Gov. Brian Schweitzer, himself a
Democrat. Republicans obviously reject that notion, noting that 15 of the 73 native lawmakers belong to
the GOP, according to figures tracked by the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures.
And perhaps the best-known American Indian politician of recent years, former Sen. Ben Nighthorse
Campbell of Colorado, a member of the Northern Cheyenne tribe, started as a Democrat but switched to
Republican in 1995. Oklahoma has the most native legislators, with 19, while Hawaii and Montana have
10 each, followed by Alaska with eight. Casino wealth and other development have made American
Indians increasingly politically active as they deal with regulation of their businesses as well as access to
state funds for health care, tribal policing and other matters. And while the poverty and unemployment
rampant on a lot of reservations leaves many disillusioned with politics, others have a sense of optimism
about the impact of their vote. "There's been a sea change in my lifetime," said Jefferson Keel,
lieutenant governor of the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma and a first vice president of the National
Congress of American Indians. "What we have now is a lot of tribal development," Keel said. "It's not just
casinos. There's a lot of manufacturing. So people feel a real stake in the system." The national Indian
congress, a federation of tribes, launched a "Native Vote Campaign" in 2004 to "advance the Native
agenda at all levels of decision-making and promote Native candidates to public offices," according to
the group's literature. Here in Helena, Rep. Windy Boy said the Indian caucus had succeeded in recent
years in gaining state funds for health clinics, water-reclamation projects and cleanup of old mining
areas. Indian priorities fared particularly well in the 2005 session because there was a Democrat in the
governor's office and Democratic control in the legislature, said Windy Boy. (Democrats still control the
Senate, 26-24, but Republicans have a 50-49 edge in the House, with one other member of the body
affiliating with the Constitution Party.) Different stances But, said Windy Boy - at 48 a tall man with a
bolo tie and ponytail hair almost to his waist - that's not to say the Democrats should "take us for
granted." For instance, both he and Margaret Campbell, an Indian who represents an Assiniboine and
Sioux reservation in eastern Montana, said they oppose abortion rights and gay marriage, two issues on
which many Democrats disagree with them. "There are very specific tribal teachings about life and the
sanctity of life," said Campbell, the minority whip in the legislature. "And I can't ever imagine being in
favor of gay marriage. That would kill me in my district." Windy Boy, who kept bounding up from his
chair during an interview to greet fellow lawmakers, aides and lobbyists in the chamber offices, said he
decided to go into state politics after many frustrating sessions as an outsider. As a tribal leader, he
would come to Helena to lobby on matters ranging from health care to economic incentives to attract
industry to the remote reservation. "It was very aggravating," he said. "I felt like we were being
undermined in a lot of areas, like welfare and health issues. I thought we were victorious, but then the
next day you'd realize someone had thrown up a mysterious obstacle to getting it done. "So basically, I
concluded I was on the wrong side of the table," he said. Windy Boy won in 2002 and plans eventually,
he said, to run for a seat in the state Senate.
AT: Exclude the Plan Text---Critique---2AC
Along with our plan, we historicize the practice of whaling as a method of
policymaking. Whaling has a rich cultural and critical theory that dates thousands of
years before this debate, in New Zealand, Japan, the Makah, and Norse mythology –
investigating historical cultural relations to whaling creates a genuine space for real
progress and critical theory, which allows for legitimate policymaking.
Sciullo 08 (Nick J., “A Whale of a Tale: Post-Colonialism, Critical Theory, And Decontruction: Revisiting
the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Through a Socio-Legal Perspective”,
HEINOnline //RJ)
International relations and the many sub-disciplines and ancil- lary disciplines associated with it require
something more free- formed. So often when reading textbooks about politics or inter- national affairs,
the reading is not interesting. That may be much to the chagrin of authors and this Article's author is aware that his writing may not
be everyone's cup of tea. There are too many notes, a long theory section with little practical application, bad
writing, a clear political agenda, no context, and no room for inter- pretation." Thoughts have been put on a
canvas thus far to de- scribe general scenery. This article's intention was not to promise solutions or prescribe
specific policy proposal, but to encourage questioning, develop interest, and encourage further
reading. Now we are able to ask the same questions and open up the same space for methods to think
about whaling issues. In the opening of space, progress comes.¶ Stuck in a world that does not change
fast enough, lacking agency, and in a constant struggle for release, the critical legal scholar performs
criticism in choppy waters. The story unfolds thusly: Stuck in a room, pen to paper, thoughts abound. City lights cast an eerie glow
over the manufactured edges of the paper, the desk . . . disgruntled with the technology that provides so much artificial closeness the author
has but one thought, "Escape!" But the
call of the document, the persistence of the policies, and the permanence
of the institutions beckons forth like a gentle tide, a warm gust of wind, or a blossoming meadow in the
subtle subdued morning fog of spring.¶ Critical, they say, a post-such and such, but to what and for what reason. If it's true what
they say, that realism" is the control- ling force in not only domestic politics," but international68 aswell, then what's the point? Why question?
International relations suffers from a lack of critical theory." More so than the typical criticism that international relations is devoid of the input
of wo- myn,o other than a relatively few scholars-James Der Derian, Paul Virilio,72 and Richard Ashley7 -few critical-minded theorists have
made much headway in the field of international relations. It
is within us to question.¶ Closer to an opus than an opiate,
the author develops ideas, tests hypotheses and endeavors to create something new. Tax bills,
registrations, parking tickets, association dues, and numerous other obligations pile up. The refuge of
the author is the words and the words are the power. The power of the people is their words and the
words can be spread to others, paradoxically those who view the author as "other."¶ There are varying
degrees of interest in the debate regarding how critical theory is different from post-modernism,5 which of course is different from poststructuralism and again, not to be¶ confused with deconstruction. Avoiding
that conversation, other than to acknowledge
the dispute, serves us all the better because to fight over the terms that we use to characterize a larger
critical project of investigation is to undo the work of the great post-mod- ernists/critical
theorists/deconstructionists of the last fifty years. That being said, this Article will utilize some of those terms to pro- vide a
rough outline of the discussion. In international relations theory, realism still rules." Realism probably seems less applicable to
the whaling debate because whaling is not so much a question of a nation-states's power, but instead a
question of how we value and protect what matters to cultures. The whaling debate provides¶ much
room for critical inquiry . . Critical Theory: Literature, Worlds, and Interdisciplinarity¶ Many scholars will suggest that critical theory
involves the ex- amination of society through literature." Though this is true, de- fining critical theory as such does not
necessarily exclude other theorists who examine society through a sociological," psychologi- cal,7 9
anthropological,o or film studies perspective. All of these theories can likely find supporters that
investigate the questions of reality, truth, justice, and humynity. Critical theory may be viewed as a
catchall that encompasses a number of movements and theo- ries including, but not limited to,
deconstruction, post-structural- ism, post-modernism, and theories that combine pop culture and
academic disciplines like law and literature, political science and film studies. Who is to say that one or
another interdisciplinary approach is more appropriate for the label that is "critical theory?" Critical
theorists often reject labeling, or, on the other hand, willccept any label given to them. To understand critical theory, one¶ must
approach it with an open mind.¶ Whaling has a long and storied history in the world,8 ' but it is rarely
analyzed from a critical theory perspective. There are countless literary tales about whaling,
numerous collections of narra- tives, and a multitude of reports that recount the cultural significance
of whales . The mythology of whaling spans many cultures-from the indigenous populations of the United
States and¶ Japan to Norse mythology. The historic accounts, fictional and non-fictional, are plentiful .
They appear on websites and in books, as anecdotes and as novels. There is something about whales in the popular
imagination that reveres these giants. Perhaps it is a fascination with giants that encourages so many to defend the whales or the
apes or to protect Mt. Rushmore or the Everglades. This is not to say that those endeavors are not worthwhile, but there seems to be a
fascination with the large. From this we can understand why the momentum seems to be with those hoping to prevent whaling at all costs.
How could we, after all, condemn these gentle giants?¶ Most individuals have not had the opportunity to see a whale, let alone fish for one. For
all intents and purposes, whale is not eaten in the United States. Even in aquariums, we are unlikely to see whales, the space constraints are
simply too strong. The author has known many individuals who have gone on whale watching trips at coastal towns who have come back not
having seen a whale. They are a rarity. It is difficult to conceptualize the need of differ- ent cultures to whale. What basis could most of us have
to support this claim? These are the existential barriers to the realization that some cultures depend on whales or have depended on whales
and have a right to do so now. Does the United States really have that much concern for Iceland or Norway's heritage?
International
relations is a tricky business and to effectively manage competing interests, nation-states must
communicate." Of course, under- standing the background and history of communication amongst nations and groups is critical to
successful communication. Unfor- tunately, a lack of communication has prevented a full and open¶ conversation about whaling.¶ What
seems particularly troubling about the momentum of¶ the anti-whaling faction is that while the United
States has been a firm supporter of this effort," historically it has been a whaling nation. A somewhat
schizophrenic condition exists where history¶ and current law battle. Why did the reversal come
about and how does the United States get to decide who can and who cannot whale ? The IWC is a member
organization and the United States is¶ not in control in any strict sense; but as can be imagined and as is true with many international bodies,
the United States has a com- manding presence." What brought the United States into the IWC and what does this say about the relationship
between the United States and indigenous people ?¶
One can utilize various fields to analyze whaling. Those fields
can, in turn, be combined with other fields." The diversity of groups involved in the debate is
evidence enough that there is plenty of rhetorical space upon which to engage in dialogue." Critical
theory offers several advantages to the whaling debate. It encourages international dialogue and urges
that all cultures be understood and represented.8 It requires a great deal of reading, fiction and nonfiction-multidisciplinarity." Critical theory does not happen; it grows, reproduces, and reconfigures
itself as itevolves through interactions with theory, text, and action." o Mak- ing informed decisions
and engaging in policy after a thorough reading of materials should not be discounted. There have often been
times where practitioners have rejected academics-not only in international affairs," but in law and political science, art and sociology.
Critical theory encourages interdisciplinary solutions to interdisciplinary problems. The questions contained in
this sec- tion are but a start to the critical project of understanding whaling.¶ B. Deconstruction¶ Deconstructing whaling is a difficult task. There
is a tendency, when deconstructing, to rant and rave about everything, attempt to disprove everything, and deny everything else."
Deconstruction- ists should take a more responsible role in the theoretical frame-¶ work" of the discipline in which they act by embracing not
only deconstruction, but also the results of changes brought by decon- struction. Unfortunately, the critical legal scholar is never out of the
systems at play that is the loci of their criticisms.9 4 Deconstruc- tion and those engaged in that pursuit are always in a difficult posi- tion and
are, therefore, open to intense criticism regardless of the insights arising from their critical journey.95 How
can one critique the
systems that are inescapable? It is perhaps exactly this notion that warrants continued questioning .¶
One of the most interesting puzzles for deconstruction in the whaling debate is deconstructing the "cultural exemption" that al- lows some
groups the ability to whale. "Cultural"
is a complex word used to convey complex ideas. That discussion is
developed more fully in the proceeding section. Why do we call it an exemp- tion? Is the idea of
exemption even appropriate? Did anyone choose to be exempt from their culture only to claim exemption to be let back in? That
seems curious. What is cultural? How long must something continue for it to be ingrained in culture? The United
States engaged in
whaling, but has not called for an exemp- tion. England has whaled, but has not sought an exemption. The answers to
these questions are not easy and even answering them would bring about more questions.¶ There are
many avenues for deconstructing the international order, capitalism, democracy, etc. Those criticisms
are often ge- neric and because they do not focus on the associations of individ- uals in those larger
groups, to pursue such a path would be counterproductive. Deconstructing complex systems often denies the import of
those systems on the people those systems affect. Deconstruction becomes void of power when it rejects people, when it overlooks the
impacts of the critical project on individuals.¶ Attempting to deconstruct the IWC similarly only gets us so far. The better use of our
deconstructive muscle is to consider what it means to be a culture and how rights and history make a culture. There are no easy answers here,
however. Deconstruction can further address the definition of rights and of history. That is part of the exciting journey that is deconstruction. It
can continue to break down every word until we can better understand what the issues are. Deconstruction's goal of facilitating a deeper
under- standing of critical inquiry is based in sound logic. Applying
it to the whaling debate then may be a fruitful
endeavor if it allows us to question the underlying assumptions about culture, politics, and resistance
that shape the debate.¶ Deconstruction is particularly useful when talking about cul- ture because
culture's many complexities demand a careful critical inquiry. Academics and policy-makers alike
should find use in deconstruction's proverbial pealing back the layers of the onion. To understand how best
to enforce rights and encourage cultural appreciation, we must attempt to understand the differences of cultures as well as the assumptions
that characterize cultural labels.¶
AT: Critiques
AT: Anthro---Critique---2AC
Perm – do both. Our critique of post-colonialism goes hand-in-hand with criticisms of
anthropocentrism – intercultural awareness and expanded dialogue on whale culture
allows for a new perspective on our relationship to the non-human. However, only
focusing on environmental protection ignores alternative views of whaling, which
reconstructs colonial logic.
Sciullo 08 (Nick J., “A Whale of a Tale: Post-Colonialism, Critical Theory, And Decontruction: Revisiting
the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Through a Socio-Legal Perspective”,
HEINOnline //RJ)
International relations, to work effectively, must involve poli- cies that seek a middle ground and the cultural exemption is, on paper, an
opportunity to engage in intercultural dialogue. We must be sensitive to the paper of laws, however. Laws, by their words, often serve to divert
post-colonial critiques. Those words, while attempting to offer solutions, often have no practical ef- fect.119 The
whaling debate can
take into account multiple points of view; however, the fact that many countries must first go to the
IWC indicates that there are still post-colonial apparatuses in the system. Mediating between cultures is
then synonymous with medi- ation between groups of people. The framework exists in this ex- emption
language. The whaling exemption is designed to promote those things that set societies apart from one
another. In- deed, for several cultures, a major cultural marker is whaling.¶ One criticism of the postcolonial scholars is that they are con- cerned with the humyn world and not the non-humyn world. To
the extent that they do address the non-humyn world, they do so with a distinct favoritism for the
humyn world. 120 Of course, mod- ern ecological thought would suggest that it is all the same world, and that idea is one I take to heart.¶
Philip Armstrong notes:¶ Concerned as it is with the politics of historical and contempo- rary relations between "Western" and other cultures
since 1492 or thereabouts, post-colonial studies has shown little interest in the fate of the non-hum[y]n animal. In identifying the costs borne
by non-European "others" in the pursuit of Western cul- tures' sense of privileged entitlement, post-colonialists have con- centrated upon
"other" hum[y]ns, cultures, and territories but seldom upon animals. 2 1¶ Understanding that post-colonialism and imperialism take an
ecological toll is vitally important to understanding post-colonial studies. Professor Armstrong is at once correct and incorrect-his observation
certainly resonates with a thorough understanding of post-colonial literature, but it suggests that ecological concerns are not a concern for
That characterization isisleading at best and vitriolic at worst . To be sure, there are synergies between animal rights discourse and post-colonial criti- cism.12 2 The resistance to Cartesian
analysis is very much a central focus of both schools of thought, albeit each focusing on slightly different
segments of Descartes' argument.'12¶ Although there are flaws in the system-perhaps because hav- ing a
system is, in itself, flawed-there remains room for intercul- tural awareness and for an expanded
dialogue on whaling culture. Of course, that might be theory talking and not practice. The de-¶ bates about the
appropriate lens through which to view cultures still rage on today. If they continue to go on without a concen- trated
effort to realize the cultural differences across the world in relation to whaling, then perhaps we need a
new course. We do a disservice to ourselves, philosophically and politically, if we fail to consider
alternate views on whaling . Armstrong notes: "Encounter- ing the post-colonial animal means learning to
listen to the voices of all kinds of 'other' without either ventriloquizing them or as- signing to them
accents so foreign that they never can be under- stood."1 24 These are not simple questions of right and
wrong, but truly strike at fundamental notions of fairness, subjectivity, and the integrity and value of
culture. The cultural exemption debate un- derscores how the whaling debate is more than a crisis in interna- tional relations, law, or
post-colonial scholars.
politics, but instead is a much broader discussion of how we understand each other.'12
Internal link turn – focusing purely on small scale indigenous animal hunting
normalizes the state-based violence in slaughterhouses, which allows for the settler
state and genocide to occur.
Powell 3/1 (Dylan, organizer in St. Catharines, Ont. Co-Founder of Marineland Animal Defense,
“VEGANISM IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: ANTI-COLONIALISM AND ANIMAL LIBERATION”, March 1st,
2014, http://dylanxpowell.com/2014/03/01/veganism-in-the-occupied-territories-anti-colonialism-andanimal-liberation/, Accessed 7/17 //RJ)
This is just one example that has been played out for decades since the development of the “animal
rights” movement in North America. Onkwehon:we coast to coast will repeat similar stories in how framing of traditional
use of just about any animal – seals, minks, polar bears, salmon, etc. is all seen and presented through
this lens in settler society. It is their practice which is backwards and violent, it is their desire to exist
“outside of” that needs to be broken and “animal rights” activists have almost always been willing to
facilitate the state in this aim. This discussion itself is one largely repeated from the Makah Whale hunt
of the mid-90′s – a similar conflict which divided the animal liberation community with active animal
liberationist and Pascua Yaqui Rod Coronado breaking with his Sea Shepherd roots and supporting the autonomy of the Makah
community to come to their own conclusions free from outside settler animal advocate pressure.¶ The long view illustrates how that is the
correct position. No
matter how many times the settler animal advocacy community bows to the State to aid
in the repression of Onkwehon:we populations over specific animal use or practices – the gains are
rarely long term and the consequences usually are. The open hostility that some animal advocates encounter in
Onkwehon:we spaces and from Onkwehon:we have a source.¶ Most importantly, framing the issues in this way and siding with
state incursion, repression and encroachment allows for the State to offer crumbs to animal advocates
while continuing on with settler animal use industries that are somehow normalized in their massive
scale and effect . To my knowledge the first traditional Haudenosaunee Deer Hunt in 2013 at Short Hills
Provincial Park killed 3 to 5 deer. Of the 3 or so slaughterhouses in the Niagara Region there has not ever
once been a demonstration – most animal advocates in the area could not name or locate them – even
though they’d kill that many cows, pigs, chickens or lambs in under ten minutes, five to six days a
week .¶ What advocates are inadvertently doing is normalizing the violence visited upon animals within
settler society while invisibilizing the work Onkwehon:we have been doing to protect other animals
species and the land. This kind of work ensures that animal advocacy on this continent continues to be
isolated, reliant on the relationships with the state to leverage other marginalized populations for small
gains, and disconnected from a broader politic that instead rightly positions the state as “violent” and
“backwards.” It justifies the settler state and genocide . This has negative consequences for all
marginalized and oppressed populations within the settler state as well as for the vast majority of
animals within the Euro-Settler animal agriculture system and the wild populations of animals still left
on the continent. Unless animal liberationist can resist this framing and instead position the
(corporate) state as the one source of “violence” and “backwardnesss” there can be no animal
liberation politic that embraces anti-colonialism.
Dominant pedagogies are incapable of educating students about the environment
without trivializing extinction—this makes local environmental change impossible—
examining the Makah whale hunt is key
Marker 6
(Michael Marker is a professor of Educational Studies @ University of British Columbia, “After the Makah Whale Hunt: Indigenous Knowledge
and Limits to Multicultural Discourse,” August 7, 2006, Urban Education, vol:41 iss:5 pg:482 -505, Sage Pub)//BB
The oral traditions and narratives of First Nations are not simply one of a plurality of cultural perspectives on the environment. They are the
local points of reference for engaging the intricacies of human relationships with the natural world. The
schools have attempted to relegate indigenous people to a mere splash of color on the multicultural mural, but the symbolic and actual violence
following the Makah whale hunt shows the limits to even this per- functory tolerance of tribal cultural values.
Including an indigenous perspective in North American classrooms offers a potent challenge because this point of view asserts countervailing goals to modern
education that can incorporate culture only as a disembodied and displaced subjectivity. The emphasis on local understanding of plants, animals, geography, and
the importance given to history and tradition is corrosive of the schools' technocratic zeal toward indi- vidualism and progress. The
Makah chose to
return to hunting whales because they desired a reconnection to an ancestral and mythic relationship to an
animal that has sustained them both phys- ically and spiritually. For both the public and the schools, one of the most
unacceptable aspects of the Makah's cultural and ecological conduct was defining the whale as food. The popular expectation is that Indians will celebrate their
culture but should obtain food from supermarkets and fast food restaurants like mainstream masses. The problem is that schools
avoid a
comparative stance on cul- ture and cannot examine the historical and constructed nature of the
anthropocentric normal, in particular, with something so basic as food. Harrod (2000) has contrasted Northern Plains mythic relationships to animals
with contemporary urban culture: Experiences of the actual slaughter of domestic animals for food are available only to a minority in me U.S. Population, and the
gen- eration that has memories of such experiences becomes smaller each year.... The
connection between neatly packaged "meat" in
the supermarkets and a once living animal is further obscured by a food culture that has shaped our
tastes in a manner that is largely disconnected from a sense of primary relations with the natural world....
The genetic manipulation of both plants and animals is totally focused on the service of human needs, (p. 125)
Whereas ethnic food festivals are often part and parcel of the schools’ efforts to promote global cultural awareness, it was unac- ceptable for the Port Townsend
students to taste whale meat. The
whale encompasses symbols and references that must be dis- tanced from the
category of food. It is ironic that the whale is, in this situation, a sacred animal to both Indians and Whites. The angry White parents, in a frustrated effort
to simplify their charges, defined the eating of whale meat as religion in the schools. Because the Makah had referenced their relationship to the whale as sacred,
the offended parents
were able to invoke a sacred/secular dichotomy that has served to marginalize
Aboriginal voice. Such cleanly divided definitions of the religious and the secular are not representative of First Nations' relationships to animals. It is also
ironic that Deloria (1995) has written extensively on how science, from an indigenous point of view, is a modern-day religion. From the school view, sharing the
whale as food violated the boundaries of expected categories. The whale, as food, was fog- gily viewed as a uniquely Indian paradigm of ritual and religion and as a
political assertion of special treaty rights. White students were invited into a shadowlands of cultural context in which Makah families had a controversial possession
of whale meat. For the school, it was an unnatural and disturbing positioning of cul- ture as lived experience and food as contraband. The clash was founded on the
assumption that whereas some Indians may hold outmoded and religious perspectives on food, schools must take a position that is more scientific, neutral, and free
from ritual. However, as Harrod (2000) explains, "Contemporary ritualized conduct in a food culture based upon images manipulated by advertising and controlled
by corporate interests has mythic dimensions, to be sure" (p. 128). The symbols and ritualized con- sumption of foods in the schools are set to correspond with the
mainstream patterns of industrially packaged and marketed prod- ucts. Students
develop loyalties and identities around corporate
food products and logos. They develop "mythic kinship relation- ships" to these products that are
extracted from the natural world. At the same time, it was unacceptable for the Makah family to offer whale meat in their school presentation
because it was defined as a religious and symbolic ritual by the White parents and school officials. The scenario placed the Indians as a suspi- ciously positioned
cultural Other and the White parents as the cul- tureless mainstream. Whales could not be viewed as food outside the controversial location of the Makah tribe but
must be con- tained in the category of special and protected "animal friends." The challenges of promoting cultural responsiveness for and about indigenous people
are not simply a matter of destabilizing Whitestream hegemony, either. In North America, the emerging cultural values and expectations of some ethnic minority
groups are focused on acquiring cultural capital for expanding opportuni- ties in a global marketplace. Mitchell (2001) has traced the ways that Hong Kong parents
are resisting the curriculum for democra- tic citizenship in British Columbia and have pushed for stan- dardized testing: "For many immigrant Chinese Canadians, the
preparation of individuals to become high achievers in a global workplace is more practical and more attainable than their consti- tution as citizens of a particular
nation-state" (p. 69). Although this article was written to show the challenges to public schooling's goal of creating national cohesion in the midst of globalizing
cultures that disdain commitments
to either nations or bioregions. Such groups are unlikely to be compelled toward an education that
emphasizes local knowledge and culture unless it can be framed around envi- ronmental themes
directly related to planetary sustainability and human survival. A curriculum and a classroom culture
that empha- size bankrupt abstractions such as "thinking globally" only pro- mote a marketized version
of ethnocentrism and chauvinism in its disinterest in the local land and history. Rather than conforming to technocratic hegemony, the schools
should challenge and critique assumptions about cultural possibilities at a fundamental level, employing
the heuristic of local ecology and history. Encouraging students to see their own surroundings as
constructed from ideo- logical and ecological histories will produce more cross-cultural coasciousness
and awareness of indigenous perspectives than a curriculum unit on Native Americans—usually an
abstract notion of people remote in both time and geography. Educators who wish to take up the indigenous challenge must
forces, it also prophesizes future conflicts between indigenous peoples' place-based self-determination and
help their students to conceptually focus a mirror rather than a magnifying glass at native people. Theobald (1997), in promoting place-conscious education,
explores how an understanding of indigenous people might be initiated in this portrayal of a sec- ondary teacher who confronts her students' presumptions: Is this
kind of societal mobility beneficial to American society? Clearly we encourage this now. but should we continue to encourage it? Of course, many students were
staunch defenders of the status quo. The chance for the high test-scorer to go to Harvard and on to Wall Street was what freedom was all about.... "What about the
freedom to stay in one's home community and lead an interesting life with an interesting job and a decent income? Where is that free- dom?" ... Her approach to
the study of history became very locally oriented. She asked questions such as these: "What Indian groups occupied this place before our ancestors came? What
kinds of lives did they lead? Why?" (p. 156) It is the why of this dialogue that leads to cultural critique and a more genuine understanding of the indigenous people.
The outside reference point that Aboriginal people provide is also the place to gain a transformative perspective on the land and local community. "Making the
familiar strange" in a cross-cultural sense will also, paradoxically, bring the deeper meaning of the land closer to students. The translucency of the Aboriginal vision
into the mythic and historical ecology of the community surrounding the school can only be viewed when students are inspired to dismantle the media laminations
of their own ethnocentrism. Two of the most striking recommendations adopted by the Assembly of Alaska Native Educators for Culturally Responsive Schools
(Alaska Native Knowledge Network, 1998) confirm the need to both critique the technocratic normal and envision the local: Students who meet this cultural
standard are able to identify appropriate forms of technology and anticipate the consequences of their use for improving the quality of life in the community, and
(6) a curriculum that meets this cultural standard recognizes die depth of knowledge that is associated with die long inhabitation of a particular place and utilizes
the study of "place" as a basis for the comparative analysis of contemporary social, political and eco- nomic systems, (p. 14) It
is futile to promote
cultural responsiveness in the classroom for indigenous students without a genuinely disruptive
approach to the underlying Cartesian beliefs in dominant educational assump- tions. In other words, the culturally
specific patterns of modern American life need to be examined comparatively. Marcus and Fischer's (1986) prescription for revitalizing anthropology is also precisely
what is needed in educational discourse. We must find ways to generate critical questions from one society to probe the other. This scholarly process is really only a
sharpening and enhancement of a common condition globally, in which members of different societies themselves are constantly engaged in this same comparative checking of reality against alternative possibilities, (p. 117) The
Makah whale hunt was an opening for a deepening of
comparative cultural education. It should have provoked educa- tors in the region to concentrate on the cultural ecology and history of IndianWhite relations. Instead, it became a flashpoint, contaminating the possibilities for cultural critique and silencing an Aboriginal polemic on identity, land, history,
and technology. The routine consumption of whale images combined with Indian stereotypes has created an impasse that is intimately connected to the histories of
knowledge/power relations between indigenous peoples and dominant groups. A self-reflective classroom moment of cultural comparison was sabotaged by this
cauldron of caustic suspicion about the indigenous Other. Bill Hess (1999), who pho- tographed an Inupiat whale hunt, concluded that such events are "just people
working together, using modern techniques but from within an ancient tradition, to feed their families with the food provided by their ancestral home" (p. 108).
Janine Bowechop of the Makah Cultural and Research Center (cited in Harris et ah, 2005) has said, " Whale
meat connects us with our
grandparents and our great-grandparents. It's not just about food and it's not just about spiritual
strength and it's not just about culture. It's really about the connection of all of those" (p. 81). Such com- mentaries
as these remain contentious in educational settings because of the stereotypes held by the public and because the schools continue to maintain a suspicious
attitude toward local, traditional, ecological knowledge. In the past, some scholars, like Arlene Stairs (1988), have tried
to convince educators
to explore indigenous forms of knowledge transmission as a "powerful con- ceptual model to apply to a
renewal of schooling... towards maturity in terms of social and ecological grounding" (p. 4). Such proposals generally remain
untried by educational institutions.
While the Makah are not the racist archetype of the “ecological savage”, their whaling
practices create a spiritual connection to the environment. The Makah epistemology
establishes the non-human entities as members of the community.
Reid 12
(Joshua L. Reid, PhD Assistant Professor of History, College of Liberal Arts Director of the Native American & Indigenous Studies Program @ U of
Massachusetts Boston, in Indigenous Environments: African and North American Environmental Knowledge and Practices Compared, “Chapter
11: Marine Tenure of the Makahs,” in “Indigenous Knowledge and the Environment in Africa and North America,” eds. David Gordon and
Shepard Krech (Columbus: Ohio University Press, 2012), 243-258. Muse)//BB
While the Makahs valued the material gains customary practices such as fishing, sealing, and whaling provided, their marine space and the re- sources within it had an importance more
Makah
tenure had sentimental—even spiritual—components. By mixing their labor with the sea, they communicated a
"bond of belonging."25 In writ- ing about Hispano loggers* belief that they owned the forests of northern New Mexico, anthropologist Jake Kosek cautions that "sentimental
argu- ments over nature are often considered the antithesis of rational discourse about property rights."1* Applied to American Indians, scholars mistakenly dismiss
these sentiments as stereotypes of the Ecological Indian.27 For the Makahs, however, their bond with
customary marine space has been and continues to be far more complex. During the nineteenth century, Makahs
recognized that tenure entailed both rights and responsibilities. These rights included usufruct rights, and high-ranking leaders decided
complex than straightforward economic terms conveyed. Unlike most forms of tenure that predominated in the United States during the first half of the nineteenth century,
who else could share the property in question and on what terms.28 Depending on the property item, ownership rights occasionally included the exclusive right to buy and sell. More
important, because Makahs embedded tenure concepts within a larger worldview that recognized "numinous forces" in their environment, they understood that ownership also entailed
Makahs believed they had a responsibility to maintain a balanced relationship with a
com- munity that included the very animals and fish that they harvested. This should not be
misconstrued as the Makahs acting like proto-ecologists. Harvesting more than a million pounds of
halibut, hunting thousands of seals, and harpooning dozens of whales on an annual basis illustrate that
Makahs cannot be stereotyped as Ecological Indians, from a non-Native perspective. But more than anything, this
responsibility.29 For example,
component of their marine ten- ure differentiates Makah ownership concepts from similar ones that pre- dominated in the nineteenth-century United States. In order to understand this
From their perspective, most
animals, plants, and prominent land- marks were nonhuman people. Billy Balch, one of Swan's "informants," told him that Makahs
believed everything—including trees, animals, birds, and fish—were "formerly Indians who for their bad conduct were trans- formed into the shapes that now appear."'0 These
nonhuman members of their community possessed powers and responded to human actions and
events. For example, many blamed the poor salmon and sealing seasons in 1879 on the fact that one of their chiefs had allowed his pregnant wife to eat of the first salmon of the season.
concept of responsibility as an expres- sion of tenure, we must examine the worldview of the nineteenth-century Makahs.
This resulted in the deaths of her and her twins and caused salmon to leave the rivers and seals to flee." Se kar jecla was an "evil genius" who had transformed into a large rock off the coast
south of Cape Flattery. On two separate canoe trips, Swan observed Makahs throwing offerings of bread, dried lulihul, and whale blubber at Se kar jecla in order to ensure safe passage." Being
responsible holders of ma- rine tenure meant that Makahs at all levels of society needed to maintain proper relationships with the larger community by observing customary practices and
protocols. Expressing tenure responsibilities through protocols permeated ma- rine practices such as whaling. Only the highest-ranking Makahs held the right to hunt whales. Specific
Successful harpooners—
had to gain super- natural prowess from the numinous powers
titleholders owned these proprietary rights, and they passed them from one generation to the next and kept them within particular lineages.
captains of whaling crews—had to have more than their own strength; they
of the nonhuman community. Before hunting, whaling crews performed specific actions—such as fast- ing, swimming, bathing, and abstinence—to secure these
powers in the form of potent "whale medicine" and to gain the protection of guardian spirits while on the ocean. Only a whaler with strong enough powers could gain the respect of a hunted
whale, who, in turn, gave itself to the hunter. Through his whaling success, a harpooner proved that he had received these powers and protection. More important, his success demonstrated
honoring and propitiating the nonhuman
members of the marine community helped to maintain these relationships, a necessary component of
their tenure responsibilities. Additionally, a whaling chief's tenure responsibilities extended into the human community.
that the nonhuman community approved of his ownership of these whal- ing rights." From the Makah perspective,
After welcoming a whale to the village, they butchered it, a process that took an entire day and unsettled the weaker stomachs of some non-Native observers.*4 Butchers observed specific
protocols when dividing the meat and blubber. Richest in oil, the hump went to the har- pooner. The whaling crew received large strips of blubber and divided the tongue, an organ that
contained a large amount of oil. As a whaling chief, the harpooner held a feast to distribute the rest of the blubber and whale meat.'5 This redistribution was not only another way that whalers
fulfilled their tenure responsibilities, but it was also how these owners maintained their authority and social status and demonstrated ownership over specific resources.36 Makahs also
expressed tenure over customary marine space by defend- ing the sea boundaries of their community against non-Makahs. About two hundred years before non-Natives began frequenting
the Northwest Coast, the Makahs tought oil the Ditidahts, a related people from Van- couver Island.57 While the oral history about this event details battles over villages on Cape Flattery and
Tatoosh Island, the conflict was over control- ling the rich marine waters and resources that people could access from these locations. Those who held these villages also owned the offshore
wa- ters and resources. As explained earlier, generations of laboring on these waters had developed a bond of belonging to this space. This bond fueled their willingness to fight for their home
waters, and violence strengthened their sentimental bond and tenure claims, in turn. Luke Markistun, the Makah who shared this history in 1921, explained it best when he stated that Makahs
held title to Neah Bay and Tatoosh Island because they had “shed blood there”. In the final quarter of the eighteenth century, when Europeans and An- glo-Americans began entering
Northwest Coast indigenous waters, peoples such as the Makahs defended their marine space from these newcomers. For example, in 1788, Chief Tatoosh confronted the British trader John
Meares, the first non-Native to record an interaction with Makahs in their customary waters. Tatoosh made him understand "that we were now within the limits of his government, which
extended a considerable way to the Southward."" The chief felt that if Meares was going to spend any time in his marine waters and trade with his people, the captain should present him with
appropri- ate gifts. However, the "small present" Meares offered failed to acknowledge Tatoosh's importance. The following day, the chief and a contingent of four hundred warriors circled
the Felice in a prominent display of Tatoosh's sea power.*0 A veteran of the Royal Navy, Captain Meares recognized sea power when he saw it, and the Felice fled Makah waters on the first
wind. Two weeks later, Tatoosh's warriors partnered with a related group on Vancouver Island to thwart the British from exploring the Strait of Juan de Fuca.41 Nearly seventy years later,
Makah leaders asserted the importance of their marine tenure when confronting U.S. treaty negotiators. Territorial governor Isaac Stevens began by explaining his perspective on the proposed
treaty, which would transfer Makah land—except that set aside for a reser- vation—to the United States. In return, the federal government would pro- vide a school, farms, and a physician,
among other items. However, Makah leaders appeared to care little for what Stevens offered. Instead, they spoke about the importance of retaining marine tenure. For example, Kalchote
stated,"I ought to have the right to fish, and take whales and get food when I like."43 Moreover, Makah statements also reflected individual ownership to specific marine locations. For
example, Keh-tchook of Tatoosh Island explained that his holdings encompassed the island and extended through coastal marine waters fifteen miles away. Most important, these Makahs
described the ocean as their homeland. Tse-kaw-wootl stated it clearest: "I want the sea. That is my country." Oral histories record that Tse-kaw-wootl refused to sign the treaty until Governor
Stevens accompanied him in a canoe so he could impress this fact upon him. Makah negotiators used the treaty to protect their marine tenure. For example, article 4 included the fishing rights
clause found in the other Ste- vens treaties ot Washington Territory, except this one had been amended to include whaling and sealing rights.41 Not only had Makah leaders convinced
Governor Stevens to alter their treaty—other Stevens treaties remained unchanged—but this was also the only Indian treaty in U.S. his- tory in which an indigenous nation reserved for itself
the right to whale. Makahs signed the treaty since. From their perspective, Governor Stevens appeared to understand and acknowledge their tenure claims to customary marine space. They
would not have signed the treaty otherwise. Today's Makahs still speak of the treaty as a document in which they"kepl the sea" for themselves.** Makahs continued exercising their tenure
rights and responsibilities during the post-treaty period. For example, in 1880, Makah sealers planned to prohibit the use of guns by non-Natives hunting in indigenous waters because they
feared that this would scare away seals.45 Most Makah sealers scorned guns, arguing that non-Natives armed with shotguns only secured two in every five they shot." Considering the Makah
In 1928, Makah whalers made an
extreme decision—they decided to suspend their whaling practice.47 This decision should be understood
within the Makah worldview that included tenure-holder’s responsibilities to the nonhuman members
of their community. For decades, whalers had noticed the declining number of leviathans. As early as 1866, they had expressed in- creasing difficulty in securing whales.*" By
perspective on re- specting the nonhuman people they hunted, a 60 percent loss probably offended their sensibilities.
the 1920s, Makah whale hunts had become rare. Today's oral histories relate that elders held one final hunt before suspending the practice in order to demonstrate it to their children, some
of whom had never witnessed a whale hunt. They expected that their descendants would resume whaling once cetacean populations rebounded.49 The foundation of Makah marine tenure—
that the sea is their coun- try—has remained constant. Similarly, expressions of their tenure rights and responsibilities have been another element of continuity. Like their ancestors, many
Makahs today continue to labor in the ocean, to exploit its resources, and to take steps to protect their waters from harmful practices.50 Additionally, they continue to see themselves as members of a more expansive community,
sentimentally and spiritually connected to other marine species.51 However, in adapting to changing conditions, Makahs have also
reconfigured their tenure concepts from being tied to titleholder lineages to ownership rights held by the tribe. The 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay set the stage for this shift. Although Makahs used
the treaty to secure continued rights to customary waters and practices, the document was still a colonial tool that reflected the predominant European-American assumptions of indigenous
societies and how they exercised property rights. Treaties such as this were rooted in the inaccurate premise that Indians only held property in common. These common property notions
applied even more specifically to marine spaces.52 Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many set- tler-colonial societies imposed their own versions of sea tenure. During colonial and territorial periods, governments attempted to secure common rights to open-access fisheries, a strategy compatible with the frontier sta- tus of coastal waters and efficient for
nullifying indigenous marine tenure claims." Although Governor Stevens's treaties emphasized extinguishing Native land ownership, they all contained an article about fishing rights, namely
sharing these rights "in common with" all citizens of the territory.54 During the seventy years following the treaty, Makahs continued to observe marine tenure tied to titleholdcrs and
lineages. For example, they continued to limit whaling to the highest ranks. In the 1880s and 1890s, Makahs who purchased schooners were at the top ol the social stratum because they had
the financial resources to make large capital investments and the kinship connections to crew their vessels. Fishing rights also re- mained tied to specific lineages. For example, in oral
testimony collected in 1941 to determine ancestral fishing locations, Makah elders provided numerous examples of family-owned fisheries. They also explained that they would not fish
someone else's grounds without permission.35 But this pattern of titleholder and lineage-based marine tenure began changing in the 1920s as Makahs—and other Indian fishermen in Washington—clashed with state officials over fishing rights. From the 1920s through the 1970s, the state's assault on Indian fishing rarified the com- plex web of family rights into tribal rights. As
fish numbers plummeted due to non-Native commercial fishermen, the damming of rivers, and the degradation of salmon spawning grounds, state officials expelled in- digenous fishermen—
whom they believed held unfair rights due to treaty protections—from customary marine and off-reservation fisheries. Newly reorganized tribal governments, such as the Makah tribal council
that incorporated in 1936 under the Indian Reorganization Act, spearheaded tribal efforts at using the courts to protect treaty fishing rights. While individuals played an instrumental role in
securing the legal protection ot Makah treaty fishing rights, ii look the resources ol the tribal govern- ment to shepherd these cases through the federal courts, a process that took decades.**1
A Makah government with oversight of tribal marine ten- ure emerged after the twentieth-century fishing rights conflicts." In 1999, Makah whalers successfully hunted a gray whale, thereby
end- ing the seventy-one-year suspension of this customary practice. This act brought praise from indigenous peoples engaged in cultural struggles and condemnation from certain
environmental and animal rights activists and parts of the local community. Additionally, the whale hunt provided crit- ics with an opportunity to vent long-held hostilities against American Indians.5* The historical and cultural dimensions of Makah marine tenure, however, help us understand that the Makah nation is reasserting its own- ership over customary waters through the
Makahs possess a history of vesting their tenure concepts within marine spaces and resources. From their
perspective, tenure entails specific rights and, most important, responsibilities for maintaining balanced
relationships within a commu- nity that includes human and nonhuman people. Through place-naming,
Makah created a culturally specific seascape that they could understand through indigenous
environmental knowledge. Developed over genera- tions, skills and practices established their tenure over customary marine space and enabled them to maintain their
revival of whaling. This action should come as no surprise because the
community both economically and spiritually. When confronted by outsiders, threats to their community, and declining sea mammal numbers, they acted to protect their marine space, which
they thought of as their country and homeland. Amid this continuity, though, Makah marine tenure shifted from titleholder and lin- eage-based ownership to tribal ownership as the Makah
nation emerged in the latter twentieth century to protect treaty fishing rights. Witnessing the rebounding gray whale population, the Makah nation has decided to reassert tribal marine
tenure rights and responsibilities in order to counter today's challenges to their human community.
“Deep Ecology” and “Animal Rights” are based in colonial epistemology and are used
to exercise violence on indigenous people. Makah whale hunting isn’t violent but does
establish a wolrdview of interconnectedness between humans and the environment.
Policy-makers must be presented with different forms of knowledge production.
Thornton 13
(Jessi Thornton, having graduated with a Bachelors in Anthropology and Hispanic Studies from the University of Aberdeen, I am now moving on
to complete my Masters in Environment and Development at the University of Edinburgh. “MISCONCEPTIONS OF A SACRED GIFT: ANIMAL
RIGHTS, IMPERIALISM AND INDIGENOUS HUNTING PRACTICES,” January 21, 2013,
http://ecopostblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/misconceptions-of-a-sacred-gift-animal-rights-imperialism-and-indigenous-huntingpractices/)//BB
Western society has found it necessary to create specific ‘animal rights’ as a response to its treatment of animals, while most
indigenous
peoples have always been aware of the fact that animals, like humans, are sentient beings which should
be respected. Many animal rights movements inherently separate animals from humans and see animals
as scarce resources which need protection and management, while many indigenous people will argue that
animals and humans cannot be separated and it is their treatment which affects their presence. Such
indigenous groups will argue that in the hunt, an animal will only offer you its body as a gift if the correct
treatment has been given to them, while western society and animal rights groups see hunting as a purely violent, irrational and
‘primitive’ practice. Unfortunately, many indigenous voices remain unheard or are discarded as ‘un-scientific’ and
thus worthless, and this means that it is often outside policy-makers, who have little, if any,
understanding of their culture that make decisions concerning hunting practices. Imperialism is a broader concept
that encompasses colonialism, and it refers to “unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationships based on domination and
subordination”, while colonialism refers to the “establishment and maintenance of rule and/or tangible settlement of people and the
displacement or subordination of others” (Jones and Phillips 2005: 142). The aim of this essay will be to analyse how ‘animal
rights’ can
be seen as a form of imperialism towards indigenous peoples, and to do this I will be analysing themes such as the
contradictory modes of knowledge, the idea of the ‘noble savage’, the ‘ignoble savage’ and the relevance of technology in regards to this
conflict. In this debate, there is a clear separation between emic and etic responses (in other words the difference between a description or
response from a person within a culture, and a description from an outside actor observing a culture), with varying modes of knowledge at play.
Human knowledge and experience can be interpreted in a number of different ways: as positivistic, ethical, descriptive and/or expressive.
Different cultures may put more emphasis on some modes of knowledge and less on others, and this
has a direct effect on how certain people define animals and the environment. In European postenlightenment practice, the positivistic mode of knowledge (where emphasis is placed on empirical knowledge and ideas that can be
‘proven’ through experimental investigation) is mostly employed, and emphasis placed on the ‘rules of science’. As a consequence, humans
are separated from the realm of nature, and animals are considered to be unequal to the uniqueness of
mankind. Ingold (2000: 20) explains: “the distinction between environment and nature corresponds to the difference in perspective
between seeing ourselves as beings within a world and as beings without it”. Hence, European perspectives are mainly based on an extraction
of humans from the world, and this has clear significance in the animal rights discourse. For if humans
are separate from animals
and nature then humans possess the power, and obligation, to control and manage nature. When it comes to the
animal rights issues, Tyrrell (2007: 2) discusses how policy makers often discard Inuit knowledge of Whales as merely
“anecdotal evidence”, which illustrates the conflict which arises between the different modes of
knowledge employed by each side. Unlike Europeans, many indigenous people live within an environment where they maintain reciprocal
relationships with the animals, thus there is no such thing as a world without humans. They acknowledge that human persons are different to
animal persons and other persons; however they live in an inter-connected system which does not allow one to control or manage the other.
Thus emerges the idea of a sentient ecology: “It is knowledge not of a formal, authorised kind, transmissible in contexts outside those of its
practical application. On the contrary, it is based in feeling, consisting in the skills, sensitivities and orientations that have developed through
long experience of conducting one’s life in a particular environment” (Ingold 2000: 25) Ingold (2000: 19) argues that the best way of
understanding this is through the ‘ecology of life’, where relationships are thought of as a part of a whole rather than something that is unique,
separate and compartmentalized. Coté (2010: 42) supports this idea: “the
Nuu-chah-nulth have a philosophy of hishuk ish
tsawalk, “everything is one.” [...] everything in life is connected.” These concepts are also explored in Bird David’s (1990: 194) notion
of the ‘giving environment,’ which will provide for humans as long as the proper relationships are maintained. In reference to whaling,
respectful behaviour is of the utmost importance to the Inuit, which includes: “not showing excitement at the prospect of a whale hunt;
harvesting animals that present themselves to be harvested; not harvesting more animals than are required; killing each animal as quickly as
possible; [...] making use of as much of the carcass as possible [...] generosity with the harvest by sharing it with family and neighbours.” (Tyrrell
2007: 579) Consequently, from the Inuit perspective (one which is probably shared by many other indigenous peoples) whales are sentient
beings who share the same social space as human beings and other animals, and it is vital to maintain a relationship with them through proper
conduct. In the conflict arising out of the animal rights movement, these differing
modes of knowledge result in
misunderstanding and often racism. European policy makers and animal rights activists whose knowledge is
based on positivistic reasoning, see animals in a paternalistic manner – as ‘helpless’ creatures that must
be protected from the ‘savage and cruel exploits’ of human beings (See Sea Shepherd 2010). Meanwhile, indigenous people such as the
Inuit agree that “animals also possess rights – the right to refuse Inuit hunters, to be treated with respect, to be hunted and used wisely”
(Wenzel 1991: 5). When
an animal is hunted, it offers its body to the hunter as a gift which will be
reciprocated through proper treatment. To end hunting completely would mean the end to the
reciprocal relationships which they have maintained with these animal persons, which would lead to social
breakdown, and ultimately the loss of their culture. Because, “for them [the Inuit], ecology, hunting, and culture are
synonymous” (Wenzel 1991: 3). Besides European understandings of animals, it is also vital to analyse European understandings of
indigenous peoples, because these are fundamental to the animal rights discourse. European understandings of indigenous peoples are marred
with stereotypes and ethnocentric views. Both Coté (2010) and Wenzel (1991) describe how indigenous
peoples were initially
imagined as harmoniously ‘at one’ with nature, representing a romantic past which so often is attached
to the idea of hunters: “When the seal protest first developed [...] Inuit were not seen as offenders. Indeed, Inuit were themselves
perceived as part of Canadian mythology, like polar bears and caribou, all living symbols of the country’s northern heritage” (Wenzel 1991: 50)
This relates directly to the idea of the ‘noble savage’, which Pease defines as someone who lives in a “pure state of nature”,
uncorrupted by the vices of technology (Pease, quoted in Ellingson 2001: 360). This stereotype was established during the ‘discovery’ and
settlement period of the United States and Canada, and has led to many colonialist policies which have undermined
indigenous autonomy. Furthermore, this image has had implications in animal rights philosophies, especially that of ‘deep ecology’,
which Wenzel (1991: 50) argues is represented by animal rights organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd Society. Deep
ecology is a belief that “nature [...] has value in its own right, apart from human interests” (Regan 1982: 212). Thus nature is
separate from humans, and does not exist for the benefit of humans. Despite this, the core principles of deep ecology as laid out by
Naess and George Sessions also includes the following point, which would be relevant to indigenous peoples: “Humans have no right to reduce
this richness and diversity [of life forms] except to satisfy vital human needs” (diZerega 1996: 701). This aspect of deep ecology has generally
been ignored as symbols such as the white coat seal and whale have become champions for the animal rights and deep ecology cause. The
values supported by Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd Society are criticised by Wenzel: “The protest movement, while it cast aside
speciesist attitudes, was
unable to categorize Inuit seal hunting other than through its own ethnocentrically
derived universalist perceptions of animal rights and values.” (1991: 41) Thus stereotypes of the ‘noble
savage’ and the values defended by deep ecologists has resulted in a clear bias and condemnation towards
indigenous harvesting practices, whose alternative understandings of the environment are ignored. If an ‘Indian’ isn’t
‘noble’, then he must be ‘savage’, according to general European stereotypes and many images sent out by animal rights activists.
Coté describes the revitalization of whaling in Makah and Nuu-chah-nulth communities, and the fervent anti-whaling campaign which was
launched at the announcement that these two communities were going to kill a whale. Many animal rights activists suggested to the Makah
that instead of killing the whale they should ‘count coup’ – a Plains Indians practice which involved touching an enemy warrior as a
demonstration of bravery. Makah artist Greg Colfax responded to this by saying: “I know nothing of counting coup [...] But, from the folks I have
talked to about it, it was an act committed between one warrior and another. We are
not at war with the whales.” (Coté 2010: 162)
This clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding that the animal rights activists had towards Makah
culture and their ethnocentric assumption that killing an animal can only be a violent act. Their philosophy is
clearly linked with that of utilitarianism, which uses a radical notion of the individual, where the greatest good for the greatest number is the
sole calculation. Thus it becomes a moral obligation to end animal suffering at the hands of exploitative, economically self-interested humans.
According to the animal rights rhetoric, because Inuit were killing seals and whales they must be barbarous, evil, and
inhumane. These beliefs can result in violent and often life-threatening conflicts: “During the Makah hunt, members of the Sea Defense
Alliance were accused of spraying chemical fire extinguishers into the faces of the whaling crew, shooting flares over the bow of their canoe,
and threatening their lives” (Coté 2010: 157). How different are such acts perpetrated by animal rights activists who forcibly try to stop
indigenous people from carrying out their own practices, to the acts committed by colonialist powers with the intent of exterminating
indigenous cultures? All of these images of the ‘noble’ and ‘savage’ Indians are the antithesis of Europeans. However, once reality disproves
such stereotypes, indigenous people once again suffer. When
Europeans begin to see similarities with indigenous
people, the flawed assumption is made that they must be losing touch with their own culture: “There is
no place for hybrids – no place for true Indians who are modern, nor for traditional Indians who change
without becoming modern” (Feit 2004: 113). This leads me to my next topic on technology and cultural authenticity. Kalland argues
that “The concept ‘aboriginal subsistence whaling’ has turned into a powerful concept in the hands of imperialism” (Kalland 1993: 5). Saying
‘no’ to whaling is synonymous with being civilized, so indigenous whalers find themselves caught within
a rhetoric which labels their practices as uncivilized, a clear connection to imperialistic attitudes and the
stereotypes previously mentioned. ‘Subsistence’ is an important word in this discourse, and it is one which often determines whether
communities are given the right, by southern policy makers, to carry out their traditional harvesting practices. Reeves describes recent, ongoing
and likely future whale hunts that qualify, or may qualify, for aboriginal subsistence status within the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC)
management framework. He discusses the Makah whaling tradition, which he argues cannot fall under the category of ‘subsistence’ as it is “less
a resumption than an initiation” (Reeves 2002: 24) since the lack of whaling over 75 years meant that the whalers had to learn how to butcher
and process whale products from scratch. Furthermore, he argues that the Makah needed to “recreate a culture in which whaling and whale
products are tangible features” (Reeves 2002: 24), but this would contrast greatly to Coté’s argument which holds whaling as a fundamental
aspect of Makah culture which never disappeared. He also argues that Indigenous beliefs that tend to prevent overkill “can only be expected to
ensure sustainability ‘under conditions of low population density, abundant land, and limited involvement with a market economy’” (Reeves
2002: 28). This argument is problematic since it alludes to an attitude that indigenous peoples need to be managed from the outside. Such
conditions as “abundant land and a limited involvement with a market economy” ignore the fact that many indigenous people don’t live under
such conditions as a direct consequence of imperialistic regulations and rules historically imposed onto them by outsiders. Going back to the
term ‘subsistence’, it is often understood to mean only the bare minimum needed for survival. Freeman argues that contrarily, anthropologists
use the term in a different manner: “subsistence refers to those practices and beliefs that are necessary to support, and in turn derive support
from, the way people make their living [...] it also involves a number of related social arrangements, beliefs, and cultural traditions that enable
the society to function” (Freeman 2000: xvi) In this sense, whaling to the Makah, who perceive it as a fundamental practice to their culture and
social relationships, should be perceived as a subsistence practice. Even so, it is evident that vague terms such as ‘subsistence’ can become
powerful weapons to the southern policy makers and animal rights activists who aim to put an end to these indigenous harvesting practices.
Furthermore, many policy makers will use the technology adopted by indigenous people, such as rifles and motorboats, as proof that overkill is
inevitable in the face of a market economy, increased hunting efficiency, and loss of the beliefs which regulate hunting. When the Makah
Whaling Commission released its whaling plan for the 1999 hunt, instead of acknowledging the tribe’s effort to conduct a hunt that was
considered humane, ethical and safe, members of the Sea Shepherd Society attacked it, stating: “there was not a trace of ‘ceremonial
aboriginal whaling’ in it” (Coté 2010: 152). Moreover, it was with guidance from the IWC that the Makah
agreed to incorporate a
high-powered rifle into the hunt in the first place, so that once they had harpooned the whale it could
be shot and quickly killed (Coté 2010: 151). It seems contradictory that an animal rights organization such as the Sea Shepherd Society
would condemn the incorporation of such technology which would give the whale a more humane death. Expecting indigenous
people to continue hunting with spears, canoes and other such tools is patronizing and unrealistic. Wenzel
argues that many Europeans will see the indigenous “handling of modern technology as evidence of cultural change [...] [thus] the animal rights
movement is itself a part of continuing colonial process in the Canadian North” (Wenzel 1991: 7-8). Thus
emerges the problem of
the chronotope – the romanticism of an out-dated lifestyle. Indigenous people are expected to hunt
with spears, canoes, etc. and lead a traditional lifestyle because their culture is located in the past.
When they no longer live up to this chronotope they become as guilty as anyone else and should be
governed under the same expectations and social obligations as the rest of (European) society. Such perceptions are
completely ethnocentric and unfortunately legitimize further cultural intrusion.
Status quo pedagogical systems treat the environment as distinct from humans—that
leads to commodification of the environment—indigenous perspectives are key
Marker 6
(Michael Marker is a professor of Educational Studies @ University of British Columbia, “After the Makah Whale Hunt: Indigenous Knowledge
and Limits to Multicultural Discourse,” August 7, 2006, Urban Education, vol:41 iss:5 pg:482 -505, Sage Pub)//BB
FIRST NATIONS EPISTEMOLOGY AS LOCAL ECOLOGY: THE PREEMINENCE OF PLACE Whereas native people are disparaged for receiving special
treaty benefits and regarded as culturally counterfeit if they renounce the romantic stereotype, they face even more ingrained obstacles than
these when attempting to communicate aspects of their knowledge and identity in the classroom. The educational perspective of tribal people
has always been oriented toward liv- ing sustainably in a place that they have defined as a homeland. This is in distinct contrast with the
universalized and abstract knowledge of the schools. Cajete (1994) has explained how "tra-
ditional forms of education
expressed in indigenous communities transferred the recipe for making a living in a given environ- ment
... a vehicle for the ecological sense and spiritual ecology of the people" (p. 165). Contrast this with the schools'
increasing emphasis on educating for "global citizenship" and participation in a post-industrial, rootless
workforce. The proliferation of multi- national corporate logos, strip malls, and commodified culture
products has produced an impression of sameness in the land- scape. This works in tandem with
movements for standardizing knowledge such that the unique environmental histories of places, which
would include the histories of local indigenous peoples, are rendered irrelevant by the educational
discourse of mobility and career opportunity. Students are told, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, that they have
no stake in any landscape or natural habitat because they must be prepared to move out frequently for
the sake of their careers. For tribal people, a career—no matter how appealing economically—that dislocates them from their
homeland would be a pestilence. Identity is connected to the land and their ancestors' relationships to the
ecology of that land; it is intimate, mythic, and sacred without being abstract. Indigenous knowledge is "based on a recognition that
human interactions with places give rise to and define cultures and community" (Cajete, 1999, p. 193). In opposition to this commitment to the
local, the
schools use, in Berry's (1995) words, an "idiotic term, 'the environment,' which refers to a world that
surrounds us but is presumably different from us and distant from us" (p. 89). In con- trast. Yupiaq scholar Angayuquq
Oscar Kawagley (1995) has used the same word environment in an indigenous way to evoke the holistic merging of inner and outer life: "Much
of the traditional knowledge and experiences of the Yupiaq were adapted to the environment and learned through the tasks of daily life in that
environment" (p. 95).
The kritik’s representations of whales are epistemologically violent and flawed—it is
used to allow racist genocide against the Makah
Brown 7
(Jovana J. Brown, Ph.D. teaches natural resource policy at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. She is a researcher for the
Center for World Indigenous Studies, “It’s in Our Treaty: the Right to Whale,” http://nativecases.evergreen.edu/collection/cases/its-our-treatywhaling.html)//BB
Since the 1970’s the
whale has become a sacred, charismatic mega fauna, symbolizing the environmental
movement to some. Television and the movies made Flipper the dolphin and Free Willy the whale into
special creatures (Friedheim, p. 5). The “save the whales” campaign in the 1970’s and 1980’s became a rallying cry for
environmentalists (Heazle, pp. 170-173). The image of the “super whale” has been given human
characteristics: it is social and friendly, it sings, it has its own child care system and it is has some
mystical connection to humans. Arne Kalland, a social anthropologist who has written about this phenomenon, says that this
fiction combines the characteristics found in various whale species into a mythical creation, a “super
whale,” which is then given human traits. Such a whale, he states, does not exist in nature, it exists only in the
minds of the people who believe and perpetuate this myth (Kalland, p. 3). The animal rights groups and
environmentalists who opposed the Makah whale hunt seem to believe in the image of the “super whale.”
Granted that some of the protestors had no understanding of treaty rights, were against treaty rights, or racist, there was an additional factor
present. The
protestors maintained their absolute attitude of cultural superiority toward the Makah, the
unshakeable belief in the primacy and importance of their own cultural viewpoints. One American Indian
observer who was at Neah Bay in 1999 wrote that the purpose of the protestors was to maintain white privilege, the
“right” of white people (and other non-Indians) to write and define the “histories” of Native peoples, and
attempt to invalidate the legal, ethical, historical, and moral quality of Native cultures and traditions. Their
often virulent and violent protest against Makah whaling reflected their own set of beliefs and their attempt to impose these on to the
Makah who had a quite different set of beliefs about human – sea mammal relationships (Two Horses, p. 26,
185). Another American Indian observer who was at Neah Bay in 1999 stated that this was an example of “the refusal of the public to respect a
living Indian culture, one that wasn’t in a museum exhibit behind a glass case” (Potts, 2007).
Their link is itself speciesist—the primacy of the whale among environmentalists is
due to anthropocentrism and Disneyfication
Marker 6
(Michael Marker is a professor of Educational Studies @ University of British Columbia, “After the Makah Whale Hunt: Indigenous Knowledge
and Limits to Multicultural Discourse,” August 7, 2006, Urban Education, vol:41 iss:5 pg:482 -505, Sage Pub)//BB
In the case of the Makah whale hunt, the issue was not that White fishermen wanted to hunt whales and were resentful that Indians were
granted an exclusive treaty right to an economic resource; it was that public opinion opposed any and all hunting of whales. The cultural clash
was based on different understand- ings of reality and different emotional perspectives about the whale. For
the nonnative public,
the whale is viewed as a special creature that has been sufficiently media-ized and anthropomor- phized.
On classroom bulletin boards all across North America, whales are displayed as gentle wise creatures helping children
imagine a warm and friendly natural world that mimics a Disney film.2 Teachers inadvertently inculcate a
strange and unnatural affection for a media-concocted icon while cementing the collage of their
students' ethnocentrism. Tribal people, on the other hand, tend to regard events such as the Makah whale
hunt as an effort to reclaim stolen cultural space and autonomy in the shadow of colonial and corporate
hegemony.
AT: Identity Politics
Critical race theory pushes aside native perspectives and cannot challenge hegemonic
ideas of the environment which are vital to undo oppression—the affirmative is a
better starting point
Marker 6
(Michael Marker is a professor of Educational Studies @ University of British Columbia, “After the Makah Whale Hunt: Indigenous Knowledge
and Limits to Multicultural Discourse,” August 7, 2006, Urban Education, vol:41 iss:5 pg:482 -505, Sage Pub)//BB
This writing, which excoriates the "Indians and nature" con- struction, replaces it with another stereotype, one based on the denial of
significant cultural differences between European and indigenous ecological conduct. Smith (1999) has discussed how discourse on the
politics of difference—or sameness—becomes caustic anti-Indian rhetoric: One of the major problems with the way words
are defined is that these debates are often held by academics in one context, within a specific intellectual discourse, and then appropriated by
the media and popular press to serve a more blatant ideological and racist agenda, (p. 73) In many respects, this move to deny Aboriginal
claims based on ecological practice and sustained inhabitation is not a new theme for tribal people of the Pacific Northwest. Washington state
has one of the most notable anti-Indian histories in North America. What is not conventionally discussed is how the politics of Indian-White
relations is felt in classrooms and other educational settings. During the 1970s and 1980s, Indian children were attacked both verbally and
physically because of White resent- ment about native fishing rights victories in the courts. The 1974 Boldt decision1 is foregrounded as tribal
people tell of their sur- vival in hostile public schools controlled by powerful White teachers and administrators, many of whom were fishermen
(Marker, 2000). The expression of local indigenous culture becomes con- tentious whenever claims on land and resources from tribal representatives are made from claims about historic cultural identity. So it was that Coastal Salish students during the fishing wars could speak about
their culture only as long as they avoided dis- cussing the salmon—a central aspect of their culture. Classroom talk about the salmon, in
particular when it included discourse on treaties, provoked attacks on Indians. The cultural claims to the salmon were pounced on at the same
time that the Aboriginal students' narratives about identity and history were confronted and framed as illegitimate by the White community.
Such assaults were viewed as justified outrage at a political, not cultural, condi- tion born of a presumed inequitable distribution of the fisheries
resource. Teachers, administrators, and other members of the White community argued vociferously that they were not being racist against
Indians but were merely disputing the "special" rights of tribal people. It could be asserted that the racist hostility experienced by Washington
state's Indian children was formed out of conflicts that were essentially economic in nature, but that is incomplete and inexact. There
is a
deeper kind of suspicion and resentment about the indigenous Other that simply finds public legitimacy
in the claims of injustice or unfair special status for Indians. Tribal elders have told me on a number of occasions that
political back- lash moments are largely an excuse for Whites to vent long-held hostilities toward Indians. There is a deep and enduring aspect
to the racism experienced by Aboriginal students that is unlike the experiences of any other oppressed ethnic minority. There
is a deep
insecurity within the consciousness and conscience of settler soci- eties that, when confronted by the
indigenous Other, is awakened to challenges about authenticity in relation to land and identity. There is
embedded in this encounter with indigenous knowledge a challenge about both epistemic and moral authority with regard to indigenous
other minoritized groups demand revisionist histories and
increased access to power within educational institutions, indigenous people present a more direct
challenge to the core assumptions about life's goals and purposes. Urban African Americans and
Latinos mobilize around equity and access dis- courses, but indigenous cultures posit a social stance
outside of assertions of pluralism, rather, claims to moral and epistemic pre- eminence based on ancient
and sustained relationships to land. Their histories and presence speak loudly, "We are the First Peoples." Kawagley and Barnhardt
relationships to land and the spirit of the land. Whereas
(1999) put it well: The incon- gruities between Western institutional structures and practices and indigenous cultural forms will not be easy to
reconcile. The com- plexities that come into play when two fundamentally different worldviews converge present a formidable challenge" (p.
120). American Indian scholar Donald Fixico (2003) points out that indigenous
and nonindigenous frames of mind are polar
opposites and that the Indian relationship to place is connected to "one of the undisputed laws of
nature" (n. 71).
Your critique fails to challenge oppression or hegemonic epistemology and pushes
aside native perspectives—the aff solves because it’s epistemology is collective and
place-based
Marker 6
(Michael Marker is a professor of Educational Studies @ University of British Columbia, “After the Makah Whale Hunt: Indigenous Knowledge
and Limits to Multicultural Discourse,” August 7, 2006, Urban Education, vol:41 iss:5 pg:482 -505, Sage Pub)//BB
This tension between the local and sacred and the techno- scientific universalization of knowledge has
been at the core of conflicts around indigenous knowledge. However, the Aboriginal themes of traditional,
collective, and place-based knowledge have been dissonant with social justice advocates and critical
theorists as well. With an emphasis on trajectories of political transcen- dence of the self and negotiated,
individualized identities of eth- nicity, hybridity, and difference, the lived collective realities of tribal
people become submerged. Grande (2000) has described some of the placelessness that is celebrated in these
postcolonial border identities and has explained that indigenous intellectuals "seek a notion of transcendence
that remains rooted in historical place and the sacred connection to land" (p. 482). Pointing out that "American
Indian scholars have, by and large, resisted engagement with critical theory" and that they have focused
atten- tion on local community problems and research, she complains that because of this emphasis on the local,
indigenous perspective has been "pushed to the margins of critical discourse" (p. 468). Genuine Aboriginal
scholarship will continue to assert the cen- trality of ecological knowledge unique to place. Efforts to form alliances with progressive theorists
will fail unless they fore- ground the interdependent mythic relationships of plants, ani- mals, and humans in actual settings on the land. The
placeless subjectivities of theorists must give way to a focus on intimacy with a collective experience on
the land.
AT: Give Back the Land
Only the aff solves Makah tribal identity
D’Costa 5
(Russel D’Costa earned his J.D. and M.S. in Environmental Law from Vermont Law School, he is clerking for the Hon. Dianne T. Renwick,
Supreme Court Justice, Bronx County, “REPARATIONS AS A BASIS FOR THE MAKAH’S RIGHT TO WHALE,” Animal Law Review at Lewis & Clark
School of Law, Vol. 12:71, http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/lralvol12_1_p71.pdf)//BB
3. Restoration of Lands to Native Americans More recently, the federal government has attempted to compensate Native Americans for past
wrongs by restoring land to them. Over 540,000 acres of public domain have been restored to various tribes since 1970.33 The Taos
Pueblo tribe of New Mexico, for example, had the Blue Lake restored to them because Congress recognized the
significant religious value to the tribe.34 The significance of whaling to the Makah should be recognized
in similar fashion and thereby serve as an analogous form of reparations. Compensation in the form of restoration of
lands to Native Americans is an important form of recognition because it “enables tribal people to retain their distinctiveness.”35 Thus,
restoration of land provides the opportunity for recognition of the tribe’s traditional identity. Also, regaining these lands allows the tribe to feel
a sense of understanding and reconciliation.36 This recognition is vital to many tribes whose identity was historically sought to be extinguished
through the federal government’s assimilation policy.37 Regaining
cultural tradition is a key element in the argument
that whaling, rather than land restoration, can serve as a form of reparations to the Makah. The Sioux
Nation’s predicament in the Black Hills case serves as an example of the federal government’s failure in awarding a monetary compensation
rather than land for past wrongs.38 Here, the Sioux Nation was originally awarded a seventeen million dollar judgment that was augmented by
one hundred million dollars for interest damages that accrued up to the date of the decision.39 To date, the compensation judgment has grown
to over five hundred million dollars, yet the Sioux have still refused to accept the money and continue to argue that “only a solution that
returns some land in the Black Hills will ever be acceptable.”40 The Sioux Nation’s desire to have the Black Hills land restored to them, rather
than to accept a monetary payment, exemplifies how significant the land is to the tribe. Therefore, in the Sioux’s situation, no amount of
money can restore to them what was lost. Similarly, monetary compensation in exchange for denying the Makah the right to whale would also
prove unsatisfactory.41 Thus, different attempts by the federal government to make up for the harm suffered by Native Americans have not
proven to be completely satisfactory or effective.42 If the respective form of reparations is to be effective, an
understanding of the
history, culture, and beliefs of the tribe seeking reparations is a fundamental necessity.43 Permitting
whaling is an acceptable form of reparations to the Makah.44
Churchill’s kritik is epistemologically flawed—his hegemony of the “land” overlooks
the Makah
Reid 12
(Joshua L. Reid, PhD Assistant Professor of History, College of Liberal Arts Director of the Native American & Indigenous Studies Program @ U of
Massachusetts Boston, in Indigenous Environments: African and North American Environmental Knowledge and Practices Compared, “Chapter
11: Marine Tenure of the Makahs,” in “Indigenous Knowledge and the Environment in Africa and North America,” eds. David Gordon and
Shepard Krech (Columbus: Ohio University Press, 2012), 243-258. Muse)//BB
TRADITIONAL SCHOLARSHIP on American Indian tenure remains limited to examining the relationship of
a particular tribe to its land and related resources. These studies often explore how land is the foundation of tribal
identity, explaining that the expansion of settler-colonists across North America resulted in conflict over Indian
land. Through a combina- tion of colonial processes, institutional mechanisms, and shifting balances of power, non-Natives dispossessed the
former occupants. Most scholar- ship about current self-determination struggles continues this trend by
focusing on land. This terrestrial perspective overlooks those American Indian nations, such as the
Makahs of Washington State, who vested— and have continued to vest — marine rather than terrestrial spaces
and re- sources with their most valued tenure rights. This essay explores the characteristics of Makah marine tenure during the first half of
the nineteenth century. These American Indians expressed ownership of nearby ocean waters and resources through
indigenous knowledge of their marine environment and through customary practices such as whaling, sealing, and
fishing. Additionally, these cultural perfor- mances reflected a sentimental connection to the sea and a
spiritual di- mension of their marine tenure. Based on reciprocity and respect, a Makah spiritual worldview—rooted in the
perception that marine creatures such as whales, seals, and tisli arc people—enabled ihem both to exploit and to conserve their rich marine
resources. Through place-naming, applying in- digenous knowledge, and pursuing maritime practices, the
Makahs made the sea
their country. Becoming increasingly entangled with the non-Na- tive world from the mid-nineteenth century on, they both asserted and
reshaped their tenure concepts to retain core Makah values and to respond to challenges. Their current revival of an active
whaling practice reflects their efforts at reclaiming the sea.
AT: Essentialism
We may essentialize the Makah, it’s strategic and vital to undo oppression
Van Ginkel 4
(Rob van Ginkel is a senior lecturer at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Amsterdam, “The Makah Whale Hunt and
Leviathan’s Death: Reinventing Tradition and Disputing Authenticity in the Age of Modernity,” University of Amsterdam, Ethnofoor
XVII(1/2))//BB
Here we enter the domain of identity politics and the politics of representation. Environmentalists sec cultural heritage as something static, as a
'snapshot* version of culture at some point in time not as a dynamic force with multiple meanings. This 'strategic projection of non-Indian
stereotypes regarding indigenous lifeways' went along with 'deeply ethnocentric visions of what qualifies as authentic culture' (Scpez- Aradanas
Makah whalers regard some traditions worth pursuing or revitalizing as part of an
articulated bricolage that is important in identity formation. Doshi argues that 'the Makah framed their
whale hunt as an integral part of their culture - implying, then, that tribal culture is something static that
must be recovered and restored for the psychic health of the community' (2002:95). To some extent, there is indeed an
element of essentializing the cultural aspect by the Makah. However, she misses the point that it is an
element of their culture that the Makah wish to articulate in their identity politics. It is a 'strategic
essentialism’ (Gaard 2001:17) in the political struggle for self-determination in a poslcolonial context. Moreover, the
Makah have always adapted and accommodated their culture to economic and political change. For
and Tweedie 1999:48).
instance, after contact with Europeans, the Makah traded their whale and seal products with them and incorporated new materials such as
metal in their harpoons (Dougherty 2001). They even provided me oil to lubricate the machinery in industrializing west coast America. More to
the point is Greta Gaard's
criticism that 'the whale hunting practices of a certain elite group of men have
been conflated with the practices and substituted for the identity of an entire culture’ (Gaard 2001:17). Indeed,
archeological evidence would seem to indicate that whaling was the preserve of 'big men' seeking prestige behavior.60 But appropriation
and articulation of this particular aspect of Makah history and culture would seem to have provided the tribe
with a charter for cultural resurrection or even cultural survival.
AT: Gaard
Perm do both: you can still defend the Makah and acknowledge the seemingly
oppressive aspects of their culture—this is later in her article
Gaard 1
(Greta Gaard is currently a professor of English at University of Wisconsin-River Falls and a community faculty member in Women's Studies at
Metropolitan State University, “Tools for a Cross Cultural Feminist Ethics: Exploring Ethical Contexts and Contents in the Makah Whale Hunt,”
Hypatia, Wiley Online Library)//BB
In the case of the Makah whale hunt, it
is no contradiction for an antira- cist feminist or ecofeminist to support native treaty
rights (the ethical con- text) and simultaneously to oppose traditional cultural practices that perpetu- ate the
subordination of other marginalized groups (the ethical content): rather, it is a position that reflects an acute
awareness of where one stands in a complex and multilayered set of relationships. Acting on the dual analysis of
this position admittedly requires some finesse: we can stand with native people and other antiracists in defending native treaty rights and
native sovereignty, but how do we voice our dissent about the oppressive features of traditional cultural practices in a way that does not
reinscribe colonialism, enhancing di- visions within the tribe for our own commercial or political purposes .'Think-
ing about our
location in this multilayered web of relationships suggests that antiracist white feminists and ecofeminists are
better positioned to confront the colonialist practices of our own culture, our government and corporations, and
to challenge their oppression of those others marginalized by race, class, gender, sexuality, and species.
In this specific intersection of historical, politi- cal, and cultural contexts, it is not the place of non-native feminists and ecofeminists to challenge even what we perceive to be oppressive features of marginalized cultures; rather, only
members of a specific culture are positioned to lead an inquiry into traditional cultural practices. Because
ecofeminists strive to act as antiracist allies to people of color, feminist allies to women cross-culturally, and antispeciesisi allies to nonhuman
animals, an ecofeminist approach to situations such as the Makah whale hunt would consider both the context and content of the ethical
question, and seek an inclusive forum for cross-cultural ethical dialogue, following and supporting the leadership of feminist cultural bordercrossers.
AT: Disads
AT: Movements DA---2AC
Broad environmental movements are dead and keystone doesn’t spillover
Walsh 13
(Bryan Walsh, is a senior writer for TIME magazine, covering energy and the environment—and also, occasionally, scary diseases. Previously I
was the Tokyo bureau chief for TIME, and reported from Hong Kong on health, the environment and the arts. “Earth Daze: What Happened to
the Environmental Movement?,” Time, April 22, 2013, http://science.time.com/2013/04/22/earth-daze-what-happened-to-the-environmentalmovement/)//BB
This year’s Earth
Day was a little less memorable, and a whole lot less bipartisan. (I can’t imagine a Republican member
it comes during a
moment of crisis for the environmental movement as it attempts to grapple, so far unsuccessfully, with
the existential threat of climate change. Back to Lemann: Then, 40 years after Earth Day, in the summer of 2010, the
environmental movement suffered a humiliating defeat as unexpected as the success of Earth Day had been. The Senate
Majority Leader, Harry Reid, announced that he would not bring to a vote a bill meant to address the greatest
environmental problem of our time — global warming. The movement had poured years of effort into the bill, which
involved a complicated system for limiting carbon emissions. Now it was dead, and there has been no significant
environmental legislation since. Indeed, one could argue that there has been no major environmental legislation
since 1990, when President George H.W. Bush signed a bill aimed at reducing acid rain. Today’s environmental movement is
vastly bigger, richer and better connected than it was in 1970. It’s also vastly less successful. What went wrong? Forty-three years after
of Congress giving a speech during Earth Day now unless they were calling for the dismantling of the EPA.) And
the first Earth Day, are Lemann and other critics of the modern environmental movement right? Have greens lost their way — and if so, why?
(MORE: From Texas to China: When Man-Made Problems Make Natural Disasters Worse) There’s no getting around the fact that
environmentalists have failed to push through a legislative solution to climate change. Cap
and trade, even under a Democratic
Congress and President, failed in 2010. The international climate regime under the U.N. seems to get
closer to collapse every year, and even in much greener Europe, carbon markets simply aren’t working. And environmentalism as a
concept doesn’t seem to resonate with Americans as it once did. A new YouGov/HuffPost poll found that Americans are less
concerned about the environment now than they were on the first Earth Day. While isolated issues like
fracking and the Keystone pipeline resonate strongly with some Americans, especially those who are directly affected —
witness the mobbed hearing on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline last week and the stream of antifracking protests — there’s nothing
close to the sheer number of Americans who were motivated to take part in the first Earth Day. What’s
changed? You can blame the specific failure of cap-and-trade legislation in part on the mechanics of the U.S. Senate — the bill passed the
House, barely — where rural conservative states get outsize representation and where legislation now needs to get 60 votes to pass. (Though
of course health care reform still managed to pass despite those same obstacles.) The growing political
polarization that has made
environmentalism almost solely a Democratic cause can’t be blamed only on greens. But I think the biggest reason is that
environmentalism has been a victim of its own success. The environment — everyone’s environment — really was a mess in 1970. Urban rivers
were on fire, smog choked the Los Angeles basin, toxic waste affected towns like Love Canal and shorelines were marred by industrial runoff.
See this Slate roundup of once polluted or threatened sites in America that have been saved by the environmental movement over the past
four decades. Things used to be very, very bad. (MORE: Why Empowering Poor Women Is Good for the Planet) And now? The air
and
water in most of America is much cleaner than it was during the first Earth Day. We have an Environmental
Protection Agency to, well, protect the environment, even if it can’t always do the job. The most immediate threats have
retreated, and as Michael Kazin points out in the New Republic, that fact alone has hurt environmentalism as an active
and broad-based political cause: Not much has changed since then. However, the most salient reason for the waning of the greens
may be rather simple: American voters do not view climate change, unlike issues on which environmentalists
won in the past, as an immediate threat to either their health or their wealth. Hurricanes may be stronger,
summers hotter and droughts longer than ever. But unless you’re a climate scientist or follow their research closely, it’s difficult to know for
sure whether these phenomena signal the beginning of a historic calamity or are merely events on a cyclical pattern. At any rate, supermarkets
offer an ever increasing variety of foods at fairly stable prices, while Mardi Gras was celebrated on schedule in New Orleans not long after
Katrina blew through. Most
coverage of climate change traffics heavily in words like could and potentially.
It’s hard to build a world-saving movement on that. That rings true to me. Environmentalists still have success
when the issues they take on are direct and local — see the furor over fracking, or the growth of organic food and BPA-free
materials. But no matter what the scientific papers and headlines say, climate change still feels distant to most Americans — important, but still
distant. One-off events like Superstorm Sandy can and do move the needle — but not enough, yet, to make climate change a front-and-center
issue for most Americans. We’re pretty good at paying attention to the here and now, and really bad at planning for the future — half of us
aren’t even saving for our own retirement. Building
a nationwide coalition around a problem of the future is like trying to
grasp fog. So maybe we should stop comparisons with the first Earth Day. We may never see 20 million Americans
demonstrate over the environment — unless, I suppose, things get much, much worse. And there’s great progress that has been
made outside traditional movement politics — look at the way businesses large and small have embraced sustainability in a manner that would
have been unimaginable some 40 years ago. But it’s going to take more than that, and it will take more than just greens. Climate change is too
big — and too important — to be left to the environmentalists alone.
Environmental coalitions will inevitably fail due to the centering of white
epistemology — this goes deeper than having a token Lakota dance at your Keystone
rally—representing indigenous stories with distinct environmental epistemology is key
We Are Power Shift 5/16
(We Are Power Shift is a grassroots-driven online community that seeks to empower and serve as a hub for the youth climate movement, ELIZA
SHERPA and Sarah Arndt are undergraduates at Skidmore College, “ON WHY THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT IS FAILING TO "DIVERSIFY",”
April 16, 2014, http://www.wearepowershift.org/blogs/why-environmental-movement-failing-diversify)//BB
To address these concerns, efforts to create a broader coalition of supporters
must be framed not with diversity as the end goal, but
equity, because it encompasses active engagement and participation. One organizer stated in reference to marginalized
populations, “We inherited this reality, but we can be architects of the future” (pers. comm.). In this sense, it’s not only about gearing solutions
towards underrepresented populations or even ensuring that organizing groups are diverse... It is also about shifting the conversation to
focus on lived experiences rather than attempting to apply concepts to specific realities we have not all lived out. While our impending
environmental and economic crisis will, and in some ways does, affect everyone, we do not all experience its effects equally or even in similar ways.
Embedded within our social system is the centering and normalization of white experiences, and the
assumption that those experiences are universal. While this may not be obviously evident, we accredit and validate people
and their ideas based on intellectual credentials but not lived experiences, logical reasoning but not introspective analysis,
and collected and articulate dialogue but not passionate assertions. These subtle interactions demonstrate the overemphasis on
modes of communication certainly not exclusive to white people, but that are more easily developed
through institutions more accessible and more populated by white people. In addition, lived experiences are often far
more painful than “objective”analyses, triggering far greater emotional responses. On the issue, an organizer kat explained that “By invalidating our emotions, you
alienate us” from the conversation. We
must restructure the American environmental movement so that it values a
variety of experiences and analyses including those expressed through anger, pain, and other emotional responses. Below we
aim to demonstrate how the “alternative food movement,” as a subset of the environmental movement, offers a lens to
understand how the embeddedness of whiteness affects environmental activism. Many advocates of alternative foods
share the same goal of diversification as the broader environmental movement. Advocates often refer to the value of getting your hands dirty in the soil, the
desire to know where your food comes from, and an interest in bringing people together through spaces like farmers markets. This framing can lack appeal
to the very communities that the movement claims interest in reaching out to because these values are
not universal. While not exclusive to white communities, these values often coincide with certain cultural backgrounds and
access to resources that not all communities share, and assume that certain populations aren’t already well-versed in these practices.
The attempt to universalize these values makes larger assumptions and generalizations about why alternative
food is important, failing to contextualize historical and cultural factors. Historically, the explicitly racist ways in which labor has been
organized (particularly the legacy of slavery), and the way in which American land has been colonized and re-distributed, is often
neglected. In other words, not everyone thinks it’s so great to go dig up carrots, or sees it as a radical act, versus one born of necessity. The idea that
alternative food spaces can fill a “much-needed” niche to foster community isn’t always relevant, or even desired, for people who foster community through other
forums. Not only are the alternative food values culturally-specific, but the strategies for change equally so. Activists and individuals draw from the ideas
disseminated by public
figures like Michael Pollan who popularized ideas like “vote with your fork” and furthered the idea that
those who can afford to buy high-quality food in America should do so despite the fact that not
everyone is able to. These goals measure commitment to environmental change through a narrow construction of what constitutes engagement that
equates good citizenship with good consumption. Not only are these modes of change exclusionary, but they also don’t
frame diversifying in terms of equity, and fail to challenge our inherently unequal capitalist economy.
Many people of color are faced with daily interactions where their racial identity is assumed to be essential to their thoughts, ideas, and means of communication.
In contrast, due to a normalized racial identity, white people are rarely in situations where their race is apparent due to the centering of whiteness within much of
our social structures and collective spaces, as exemplified in the values and methods of change-making in both the food and larger environmental movement. While
we often assume that unless one harbors racist ideals or acts in a discriminatory fashion one is in the clear, an anti-racist. In reality, embodying anti-racism
necessitates an active process of constant engagement. What we aim to argue is that to be anti-racist, one cannot just recognize the way a minority identity affects
one’s lived experience, but how a white racial identity affects one’s experience just as much (in very different ways). The
environmental movement
misinterprets the call for diversity as a matter of “reaching out.” The movement must recognize that
sustainable diversity depends on reciprocity and is as much a matter of reflexivity - of looking inwards and understanding one’s
own positionality - as a matter of reaching out. In other words, positionality matters. And we argue that to understand your
positionality demands identifying, examining, and changing racially charged and colonizing mindsets. While
these engrained mindsets may not be our individual faults, we all still partake, sometimes in subtle and unconscious ways. Put yourself in situations
that demand you question your opinions, knowledge systems, and values - situations that make you
uncomfortable. Situations that are common for everyone who doesn’t “look” white. Get involved with conversations and spaces that address social
injustices, and don’t come with an agenda but rather to listen and learn. This may be uncomfortable, but only through discomfort can a
meaningful conversation begin . So no, “diversifying” the movement is not a matter of merely co-sponsoring an event with an OSDP club or
inviting people of color to come to meetings and join “our movement.” It also takes more than just going to “their table,” partaking
in a “cultural” food event, a dance, or watching a performance. Instead, it is a matter of investing. Investing in the lifelong task of
acting in true solidarity with people of color, who are proportionally more affected by the same systematic inequities that exacerbate climate change and other
environmental ills. In order to create the mental and emotional space to truly act in solidarity, we must all engage in the process of decolonizing of our own
understanding and mindsets. By
engaging in conversation, one that exposes and challenges the inequality in environmental organizing,
we can begin to subvert the foundations of environmental and social injustice affecting all of us.
No spillover—protests won’t have credibility
Weinbaum 2k
(Matthew Weinbaum, attorney, University of Michigan, “Makah Native Americans Vs. Animal Rights Activists,” 2000,
http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/makah.htm)//BB
����������� Protestors
attempted to stop the whale hunt by humiliating the Makah people. Where the
Makah cemetery lies, protestors shouted obscenities and demeaning insults upon members of the tribe partaking in the hunt. These
insults were malicious; �Real men don�t kill animals! Only a coward kills whales! You are a coward and a sissy!� �Another woman shouted that the Makah do
not have special rights just because they were Indians. (Sullivan 136)� ����������� With large sums of financial reserves from donations to their
organizations, PAWS, Sea Shepherd and numerous other animal and environmental rights� groups used the media to bring attention to what they considered to be
the plight of the whales. This strategy was effective in that it riled and upset many of the tribal members. It did not however, stop the whaling from eventually
taking place. Through using the media, tribal members such as Alberta Thompson and protestors on-site at the Makah reservation, people opposing the hunt
garnered the national attention they craved in order to help save the whales. Their strategies were effective in gaining the interest of the media. However, the
protestors angered and hurt the indigenous Native Americans. Their methods of protesting can be considered culturally racist, ignoring the traditions and pride of
the Makah. By insinuating that biodiversity is more important than cultural diversity, the
protestors asserted that Makah culture is
primitive and the natives need to conform in order to gain status to be considered as �humane� as others.
����������� In response to the dissenters Keith Johnson, the president of the Makah Whaling Commission,
wrote an open-ended letter to the Seattle Times explaining the tribes feelings and beliefs. This was done in order to make others aware
that the tribe believes it was mistreated. The tribe asserted that it is not a protestors place to question Makah culture and that it is damaging for protestors to
spread inaccurate information pertaining to how many whales are hunted and what the tribe plans to do with the whale meat. These agitators asserted that the
Makah hunted the animal in order to sell its animal flesh to the Japanese. Johnson calmly and accurately refuted this claim by stating the number of whales the
Makah planned to kill each year and that there was absolutely no truth to the Makah ever selling what they received in each hunt (1-6). �����������
Addressing how the protestors treated members of the whaling crew, Johnson
made his case effectively for the Makah right to
hunt the gray beast in his editorial. Although many opposed the hunt, protestors used culturally racist tactics and
inaccurate information. This gave increased validity to Johnson, while Sea Shepherd and other activists�
can be viewed as oppressors of Makah Culture.
Doesn’t spillover—limited to Washington and BC
Keystone won’t come up for a vote—lobbying
Murphy 5/8
(Bill Murphy, Digital Media & Outreach for NRSC, May 8, 2014, “Democrats Kneel Before Radical Environmentalist,”
http://www.nrsc.org/blog/democrats-kneel-before-radical-environmentalist)//BB
Then, their most vulnerable incumbents proved ineffective and irrelevant after Harry Reid
caved to Tom Steyer's millions and
blocked a vote on the Keystone Pipeline - a commonsense job creating measure supported by an overwhelming majority of
Americans. Earlier this week Reid & Co. used every trick in the book to deceive voters into believing that Keystone could pass. We knew it
didn't. Reid won't risk losing Tom Steyer's $100,000,000. On Tuesday, Mary Landrieu insisted that there were 60 votes for
Keystone if Reid would give her the vote. Turns out, after all Landrieu's braggadocio about leading the powerful Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, she's not in charge at all. Harry Reid is. Democrats like Mary Landrieu who stand loyal to Harry Reid’s side are responsible for the
failure of Keystone to pass. The outcome hurts middle-class families and workers throughout the country. Her response? "Meh." The
latest
Democrat bowing to liberal billionaire Tom Steyer (who is coming under fire for a deal to sell a stake in a Russian oil company
to an oligarch who is the target of U.S. sanctions) certainly was a crippling blow to Mary Landrieu's lagging campaign. But it also reinforces
how ineffective and powerless Senators like John Walsh, Mark Begich, Mark Pryor, Mark Warner and
Jeanne Shaheen are.
(Insert environmental apocalypse reps bad)
1AR: Keystone + Global Movements Fail
The movement is dead—anti-keystone movements won’t bring it back or solve
warming
Nordhaus and Shellenberger 2/12
(Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger are chairman and president, respectively, of the Breakthrough Institute, a think tank that works at
the intersection of environmental protection, energy policy and global development. “The Environmentalist Need to Move On and Away From
Keystone,” NY Times, Feb 12, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/02/12/is-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-worth-the-fight/theenvironmentalist-need-to-move-on-and-away-from-keystone)//BB
The environmental movement's decision to target Keystone must be understood in the context of the
collapse of the environmental movement’s climate agenda, first internationally in Copenhagen and then
domestically in Congress. Having failed to enact sweeping measures to cap or tax greenhouse gas emissions, the
reasoning went, the time had come to confront the nation's fossil fuel infrastructure and industry directly .
The green movement continues to oppose the technologies that have demonstrably worked to reduce
emissions, namely nuclear energy and natural gas. The effort, if nothing else, appears to have been immensely satisfying. No
sooner had it become clear that two years of moralizing sermons and poor civil rights analogies would not stop Keystone then the
movement's leaders tilted at yet another windmill — demanding that universities and philanthropies
divest from fossil fuels. Like Keystone — which even under the best of circumstances would, by our calculations, have
resulted in a global temperature difference of .0002 degrees Celsius — there is absolutely no reason to
think that convincing investors to sell their interest in Exxon will have any significant impact on either
the physics or politics of climate change. Ultimately, we will turn away from fossil fuels and reduce emissions precisely to the
degree to which we deploy real alternatives. Yet greens continue to oppose the technologies that have demonstrably worked to reduce
emissions, namely nuclear
energy, which allowed France and Sweden to decarbonize most of their electrical
systems, and which remains the largest source of zero carbon energy globally, and natural gas, which has
allowed the United States to reduce its emissions faster than any other nation in the world since 2007. In the
end, protests won't solve what ails environmentalism. All over the world, the environmental agenda is
in retreat. Carbon caps have had little impact on emissions. The Kyoto framework has long since been
abandoned. Renewables mandates have proved costly as innovation policy and ineffectual as climate policy. In this sense,
the turn toward Keystone and now divestment mark not the beginnings of a new climate movement
but the death rattle of the old one .
Keystone movements also fail, and even if they win, they don’t solve tar sands
development
*Answers Ogallala Impact too
Horwitz 2/12
(Tony Horwitz is an American journalist and writer, author of "BOOM," “Environmentalists Have Picked the Wrong Battle,” NY Times, Feb 12,
2014, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/02/12/is-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-worth-the-fight/environmentalists-have-picked-thewrong-battle)//BB
If environmentalists thought they could keep Canada’s tar sands in the ground by opposing the XL, then
they picked the wrong fight. It is impossible to stop production and transport of a substance for which
there’s avid demand. Witness our futile “war on drugs.” A pipeline is ultimately an industrial catheter, a 36-inch-diameter steel needle.
If denied one delivery system, addicts will find another. It is impossible to stop production and transport of a substance for
which there’s avid demand. But having chosen a battle they’re unlikely to win outright, foes of the XL have scored
significant tactical victories. TransCanada has been forced to change the pipeline route through Nebraska, to reduce the danger to
the Ogallala aquifer and the ecologically sensitive Sand Hills. The company has agreed to a raft of
safeguards on the XL above and beyond what is normally required of pipelines. And any accident, however minor,
will draw instant opprobrium and clamor for tighter regulation. All this lessens the risk of a disaster like the one that
occurred in 2010, when a pipeline rupture spilled 20,000 barrels of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. As for climate
change, foes of the XL have, at the least, postponed the project for years, slowing the processing and flow of tar sands. The Achilles' heel of
Canada’s dirty oil is that it’s very expensive and difficult to extract and must be transported vast distances to heavy-crude refineries and
shipping ports. There’s still a chance that costly
delays in building the XL, or a sharp fall in the oil price, will
undermine the economics of the pipeline. The fight over the XL has also put the oil industry on notice that future such projects
will face fierce opposition, and not only from groups like 350.org. On a recent journey along the proposed route of the XL, I met many
ranchers and farmers in flaming-red rural counties who feel the pipeline threatens their property rights and agricultural
future. As a result, they’ve joined in an unlikely coalition with Greens, urban Democrats and Native Americans to
oppose the pipeline. Environmentalists might lose the battle to stop the XL, and until we curtail demand for fossil fuels, curbing
supply is a pipe dream. But in choosing to oppose the XL, foes have laid the groundwork for fighting what is likely
to be a long trench war over America’s energy future.
AT: Whaling DA---2AC
Plan doesn’t affect gray whale populations—rebounding populations
D’Costa 5
(Russel D’Costa earned his J.D. and M.S. in Environmental Law from Vermont Law School, he is clerking for the Hon. Dianne T. Renwick,
Supreme Court Justice, Bronx County, “REPARATIONS AS A BASIS FOR THE MAKAH’S RIGHT TO WHALE,” Animal Law Review at Lewis & Clark
School of Law, Vol. 12:71, http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/lralvol12_1_p71.pdf)//BB
2. The Rebound of the Gray Whale It is significant to acknowledge that at the time the moratorium was imposed, the gray whale population
was estimated to be fewer than five thousand whales, whereas now it is believed that there
are more than twenty-one
thousand gray whales.70 This number is even greater than the total population of gray whales believed to
have existed before the commercial whaling of the mid-1800’s.71 In this respect, the IWC’s moratorium may be seen as a success
because the numbers of this whale species have reached a non-threatened and indeed abundant level.72 In
response to the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Metcalf v. Daley,73 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) completed
an environmental assessment on how gray whales would be affected by the Makah’s hunts.74 This
environmental assessment found that “[t]he issuance of a quota of five gray whales taken or seven strikes . . .
will have no significant impact on the eastern North Pacific gray whale population, which is estimated at
more than 26,600 whales.”75 NOAA’s finding is especially illuminating because it completely defeats the claims of
conservationists that argue the Makah’s hunting will decimate the gray whale population .76 To the
contrary, the assessment continues, “Even if the gray whale population has declined below the estimated population of more than 26,635
whales, it would not have declined enough to cause any concerns for the minimal level of takes or strikes . . . by Makah whalers.”77 Therefore,
NOAA’s finding of no significant impact demonstrates that the gray whale population has rebounded and is not threatened by the Makah’s
limited whaling. Due to the fact that whale populations have risen to such sustainable levels,78 any hunting performed under the Makah’s
aboriginal subsistence exemption would pose no threat to today’s whale populations. This point has been duly noted by Watters and Dugger:
“By banning commercial killing of gray whales for several decades, the species has recovered to the point where, in theory, it could become
available for hunting in small numbers without endangerment of extinction.”79 The scientific community also acknowledges that, “given [the]
rebound in gray whale populations, the taking of twenty whales over five years would have no effect on global populations.”80 The Makah,
therefore, exemplify the fact that the quota granted under the aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW) exemption is effective because “the
Makah plan is consistent with the IWC’s conservation regulations and existing subsistence exceptions . . .
.”81 Since the gray whale population has more than rebounded, evidenced by today’s large numbers, the Makah’s whaling will not threaten the
gray whale species with the possibility of extinction. Therefore, this fact defeats the argument that the Makah should not be permitted to
resume whaling because they will threaten the species’ existence.
Yes – killing whales might hurt the environment, but tunneling purely on questions of
environmental sustainability ignores the threat of post-colonialism. Until we negate
the imperialistic nature of our legal systems, post-colonialism will result in endless
cycles of environmental destruction and warfare.
Sciullo 08 (Nick J., “A Whale of a Tale: Post-Colonialism, Critical Theory, And Decontruction: Revisiting
the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Through a Socio-Legal Perspective”,
HEINOnline //RJ)
Of particular interest are the environmental arguments against whaling, which, while often well
reasoned, do not carry the day when compared with the threat of post-colonialism and the evils
associated with that type of worldview. The cultural interests of certain groups are more persuasive
than the environmental per- spectives in the whaling debate and the threats to cultural interests pose
a very real threat to the survival of peoples . Not because the humyn world is more worthy than the
non-humyn world," but be- cause the more imminent threat to the world's wellbeing is the powerful
and destructive force of imperialism and post-colonial- ism. This is not to say that the environmental
arguments do not make valid points or that preserving our environment ought not to e an important
consideration in our socio-legal discourse. On the contrary, environmentalism (and its permutations) has
been one¶ of the most important movements of the last thirty years. mately, the negative impacts of
imperialism and post-colonialism have resulted in a variety of ills that include, but are not limited, to
environmental destruction, war, and slavery. Without addressing these worldviews, environmental
agendas will go unmet and envi- ronmental denigration will continue.
Internal link turn – focusing purely on small scale indigenous animal hunting
normalizes the state-based violence in slaughterhouses, which allows for the settler
state and genocide to occur.
Powell 3/1 (Dylan, organizer in St. Catharines, Ont. Co-Founder of Marineland Animal Defense,
“VEGANISM IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: ANTI-COLONIALISM AND ANIMAL LIBERATION”, March 1st,
2014, http://dylanxpowell.com/2014/03/01/veganism-in-the-occupied-territories-anti-colonialism-andanimal-liberation/, Accessed 7/17 //RJ)
This is just one example that has been played out for decades since the development of the “animal
rights” movement in North America. Onkwehon:we coast to coast will repeat similar stories in how framing of traditional
use of just about any animal – seals, minks, polar bears, salmon, etc. is all seen and presented through
this lens in settler society. It is their practice which is backwards and violent, it is their desire to exist
“outside of” that needs to be broken and “animal rights” activists have almost always been willing to
facilitate the state in this aim. This discussion itself is one largely repeated from the Makah Whale hunt
of the mid-90′s – a similar conflict which divided the animal liberation community with active animal
liberationist and Pascua Yaqui Rod Coronado breaking with his Sea Shepherd roots and supporting the autonomy of the Makah
community to come to their own conclusions free from outside settler animal advocate pressure.¶ The long view illustrates how that is the
correct position. No
matter how many times the settler animal advocacy community bows to the State to aid
in the repression of Onkwehon:we populations over specific animal use or practices – the gains are
rarely long term and the consequences usually are. The open hostility that some animal advocates encounter in
Onkwehon:we spaces and from Onkwehon:we have a source.¶ Most importantly, framing the issues in this way and siding with
state incursion, repression and encroachment allows for the State to offer crumbs to animal advocates
while continuing on with settler animal use industries that are somehow normalized in their massive
scale and effect . To my knowledge the first traditional Haudenosaunee Deer Hunt in 2013 at Short Hills
Provincial Park killed 3 to 5 deer. Of the 3 or so slaughterhouses in the Niagara Region there has not ever
once been a demonstration – most animal advocates in the area could not name or locate them – even
though they’d kill that many cows, pigs, chickens or lambs in under ten minutes, five to six days a
week .¶ What advocates are inadvertently doing is normalizing the violence visited upon animals within
settler society while invisibilizing the work Onkwehon:we have been doing to protect other animals
species and the land. This kind of work ensures that animal advocacy on this continent continues to be
isolated, reliant on the relationships with the state to leverage other marginalized populations for small
gains, and disconnected from a broader politic that instead rightly positions the state as “violent” and
“backwards.” It justifies the settler state and genocide . This has negative consequences for all
marginalized and oppressed populations within the settler state as well as for the vast majority of
animals within the Euro-Settler animal agriculture system and the wild populations of animals still left
on the continent. Unless animal liberationist can resist this framing and instead position the
(corporate) state as the one source of “violence” and “backwardnesss” there can be no animal
liberation politic that embraces anti-colonialism.
AT: Treaty DA
AT: Treaty DA---No Link---2AC
Plan doesn’t set a precedent—three reasons
D’Costa 5
*The IWC whaling quota for the Makah was given to the Nuu-chah-nulth people as a whole, to whom the Makah are related
(Russel D’Costa earned his J.D. and M.S. in Environmental Law from Vermont Law School, he is clerking for the Hon. Dianne T. Renwick,
Supreme Court Justice, Bronx County, “REPARATIONS AS A BASIS FOR THE MAKAH’S RIGHT TO WHALE,” Animal Law Review at Lewis & Clark
School of Law, Vol. 12:71, http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/lralvol12_1_p71.pdf)//BB
The floodgates
argument supports the idea that allowing the Makah an ASW quota will pave the way for
other nations, like Japan, who also have a history of whaling, to seek ASW exemptions. There are also concerns that the
Makah’s quota “would establish a precedent for similar claims from increasingly sophisticated, activist, and wellfunded aboriginal groups
worldwide against whom the moratorium has been operating to inflict serious economic deprivation.”152 The Makah have provided three valid
counterarguments to these claims. First,
the Makah note that the potential ASW quota assigned for the Nuuchah-nulth, an indigenous tribe from Canada, “would not impact whale population dynamics or sustainability.”153 Next,
the Makah also emphasize how the Nuu-chah-nulth’s history made them an unlikely candidate for an
ASW exemption because whaling was not historically an essential part of their culture.154 Finally, the
Makah express how they are entitled to whale “based on their reserved sovereign right under the Treaty.”155
The Makah’s counterarguments demonstrate that the floodgates argument is not as concrete as many believe. This
failing argument may perhaps be based on the deeper fear that the whales may become endangered again—a fear the recent NOAA
environment assessment proves is unfounded.156 Ultimately, it
seems that many of the antiwhaling arguments stem
from a lack of understanding of the Makah’s culture and the true minimal impact the tribe would have
on the whale population, which, as stated below, is considerably less damaging than that of commercial whalers.157
Australia-Japan Relations DA
2AC A-J Relations – Non-UQ
Non-unique – Japanese scientific whaling is already perceived as commercial whaling
in disguise – impact should have been triggered.
Lee 11— QUALS NEEDED (Rebecca, “The History and Effectiveness of the Legal Regime Governing
Whaling, the Problems Faced by the International Whaling Commission and Its Future, Focusing on
Recent IWC Proposals,” Dublin Legal Review Quarterly, HeinOnline, pp. 50)
Critics and anti-whaling countries have also condemned Japan's research whaling as being 'commercial
whaling in disguise Helen Clarke, New Zealand's Prime Minister, argues that there is 'no convincing
scientific reason for the Japanese to kill any whales at all' and notes that 'it is well known that the meat from
the whales killed during the scientific expeditions finishes up at Japanese dinner tables. That's what appals
people1.200 Indeed, a large quantity of whale meat is sold and consumed each year as a 'by-product' of research whaling,201 however Kazuo
Sumi argues that in Japan whale meat is 'not only a food source, but also a basis of culture', and points to the fact that the 'Japanese whaling
industry uses all parts of the whale in a productive manner'202 to justify scientific whaling. D'Amtro and Chopra are dismissive of this argument
though, noting that it
has 'nothing to do with whether the Japanese whaling policy is justified as a form of
scientific research', and that '...from the point of view of the whale, the fact that all of its bodily parts are
exploited cannot make a moral difference \203 Article VIII(2) does allow whales to be utilised after research has been
completed, thus appearing to permit meat and whale products to be sold, but WDCS argue that this 'was not intended by the drafters to allow
for large scale lethal research for commercial use of the 'by- products'*.204
Japan won’t whale – no support in the international community.
Mahr 10—TIME's South Asia Bureau Chief and correspondent in New Delhi, India (Krista, “Support for
Japan’s Whaling: On the Verge of Extinction?,” TIME, 6/16,
http://science.time.com/2010/06/16/support-for-japans-whaling-on-the-verge-of-extinction/)//FJ
Whaling hasn’t had an overwhelming surge of global support since the days of oil lamps and corsets, but the eastern
hemisphere’s tolerance for Japan’s ongoing hunt is wearing particularly thin these days. The latest to
jump ship is Palau, a Pacific island a few thousand miles south of Tokyo which has backed Japan in its exploitation of a loophole in the
global whaling moratorium that allows nations to hunt whales in the name of science. Palau, which does not whale itself, joined the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 2002 and has, until now , been a supporter of Japan’s research program —
and a recipient of Japanese aid. The announcement of Palau’s president that it would reconsider its
position came hot on the heels of a June 13 Sunday Times article that reported several small nations
admitted or considered receiving cash or gifts from Japan to win their votes to end the 24-year-old
commercial ban on whaling in the upcoming meeting of the IWC. Japan promptly denied the allegations. Palau isn’t
exactly a lone ranger in its opposition. Japan and Australia have been locking horns on the issue since last month,
when Canberra said it would take Tokyo to the International Court of Justice for flouting international
law by continuing to hunt whales in Antarctic waters. The move followed a tumultuous season, when
Japan whaling ships clashed several times with anti-whaling activists in what has become an annual
scuffle in the southern seas. Japan rejected Australia’s warning, calling it a ploy ahead of campaign season.
Japan can’t resume commercial whaling – poor scientific practices gut credibility.
WWF 14—the leading organization in wildlife conservation and endangered species (World Wide Fund
for Nature, “IWC Current Situation,” WWF Global,
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans/cetaceans/iwc/iwc_current_situati
on/)//FJ
For the government of Japan today, not much has changed. Japan avoids the moratorium on whaling by hunting whales in both
the Antarctic and the North Pacific, claiming that these whales must be killed to answer critical management questions. Yet the science
being practised by Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research - established in 1987 when the IWC moratorium on commercial
whaling threatened to end Japan's Antarctic whaling programme - is
increasingly being recognised as poor quality,
misleading or simply spurious. In many cases, Japan routinely ignores credible scientific data that do not
support its whaling policies, or conducts the whaling in the absence of critical management information.
In short, Japan is still using the scientific practices of 1946 , when the Convention on Whaling was drafted, while the
rest of the scientific world has moved into the 21st Century. Overall, the scientific research conducted
by Japan is nothing more than a plan designed to keep the whaling fleet in business, and the need to use
whales as the scapegoat for over-fishing by humans. Until the Government of Japan starts conducting
objective science, and stops ignoring the findings of other researchers, it will have no credibility in its campaign to
resume commercial whaling.
2AC A-J Relations – No Link
The Japanese will never gain an IWC quota – don’t have aboriginal status and whaling is commercial
Jenkins and Romanzo 98—have a private law practice in Washington D.C., specializing in
international and environmental law, and trade and the environment (*Leestefly AND **Cara, “Makah
Whaling: Aboriginal Subsistence or a Stepping Stone to Undermining the Commercial Whaling
Moratorium?,” Colorado Journal of Int'l Envt'l Law and Policy Colorado Journal of International
Environmental Law and Policy, LexisNexis, Winter 1998,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=15295
0&sr=AUTHOR(Jenkins)%2BAND%2BTITLE(Makah+whaling%3A+aboriginal+subsistence+or+a+stepping+
stone+to+undermining+the+commercial+whaling+moratorium%3F)%2BAND%2BDATE%2BIS%2B1998)//
FJ
There are two key differences between JSTCW and Makah whaling that greatly differentiate the two and
that may ultimately prevent nations like Japan from ever obtaining IWC quotas . First, the Makah can
legitimately claim aboriginal status, while the four Japanese coastal communities that wish to resume
whaling cannot seriously pursue this line of argument. Second, the Japanese Action Plan for consumption
and distribution of whale meat is commercial in nature, while, at the moment, the Makah are only
requesting local, noncommercial distribution of whale meat.
Japanese won’t get whaling rights even after Makah exemption – whalers came in the 1900s and are
therefore not indigenous.
Jenkins and Romanzo 98—have a private law practice in Washington D.C., specializing in
international and environmental law, and trade and the environment (*Leestefly AND **Cara, “Makah
Whaling: Aboriginal Subsistence or a Stepping Stone to Undermining the Commercial Whaling
Moratorium?,” Colorado Journal of Int'l Envt'l Law and Policy Colorado Journal of International
Environmental Law and Policy, LexisNexis, Winter 1998,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=15295
0&sr=AUTHOR(Jenkins)%2BAND%2BTITLE(Makah+whaling%3A+aboriginal+subsistence+or+a+stepping+
stone+to+undermining+the+commercial+whaling+moratorium%3F)%2BAND%2BDATE%2BIS%2B1998)//
FJ
The Japanese try to argue that the term "aborigine" has a culture-specific, connotative meaning different in English than Japanese and that it
includes all native peoples in the broadest sense. n90 This argument, however, falls apart when one considers that the
Japanese
recognize the Ainu as their own "aboriginal" people, revealing that the Japanese do in fact recognize the
distinction between "aboriginal" and "native" peoples. n91 [*98] Even if one accepts that the Japanese may be a "native" or
"indigenous" people, the four Japanese coastal communities wishing to resume whaling are not "aboriginal" as
that term was intended by the IWC. The use and application of the term "aboriginal", as used by the IWC, has been extremely narrow. Terms
such as "native" and "indigenous" have only been used as modifiers of the central term, "aboriginal" -and not as separate categories for purposes of the ASW exemption. This may be inferred from the select group
granted ASW quotas by the IWC: Eskimos, Greenlanders, Russian natives, and one lone whaler in the Caribbean. These peoples are aboriginal in
a strict traditional sense: they live in the same region as their original ancestors and have a unique ethnic configuration distinct from the
surrounding population. n92 By contrast, the
Japanese whalers originally migrated to the island of Japan relatively
recently, and commercial Japanese whaling companies have historically operated throughout the
country instead of conducting whaling in a specific locality. n93 In addition, some of the four modern-day
whaling grounds that the Japanese try to claim are "native" in origin actually came into being in the
1900s : for example, Ayukawa didn't become a whaling ground until 1906. n94 As of 1887, Ayukawa was a small village without any
relationship to whaling, a town consisting of "332 inhabitants none of whom had the necessary whaling skills. Although a few attempts had
been made to establish net whaling groups in the area . . .
a tradition of whaling seems to have not been established
before early in the twentieth century." n95 Though the Japanese try to create the illusion of a long tradition in. these
communities, there was not a distinct, continuing whaling tradition attached to these coastal communities
in the aboriginal sense. Aboriginal whaling must be understood as traditionally-based whaling which relates to a specific, localized
indigenous community. Thus, because these Japanese coastal whalers cannot be characterized as aborigine communities, they have no more
right to hunt than any other national commercial whaling industry halted by the moratorium.
Japanese whalers will never get a quota – whaling is intrinsically tied to commerce and therefore not
exclusively cultural.
Jenkins and Romanzo 98—have a private law practice in Washington D.C., specializing in
international and environmental law, and trade and the environment (*Leestefly AND **Cara, “Makah
Whaling: Aboriginal Subsistence or a Stepping Stone to Undermining the Commercial Whaling
Moratorium?,” Colorado Journal of Int'l Envt'l Law and Policy Colorado Journal of International
Environmental Law and Policy, LexisNexis, Winter 1998,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=15295
0&sr=AUTHOR(Jenkins)%2BAND%2BTITLE(Makah+whaling%3A+aboriginal+subsistence+or+a+stepping+
stone+to+undermining+the+commercial+whaling+moratorium%3F)%2BAND%2BDATE%2BIS%2B1998)//
FJ
Due to the requirement that aboriginal whaling is to be used solely for subsistence and cultural
purposes, local consumption is a central identifying element for ASW. n96 In contradistinction, the Japanese
have a national distribution system for whale products . The distribution of whale products occurs in two ways: through
commercialized transactions that introduce the meat into local, regional, and national distribution chains; and through an informal distribution
system that involves a customary sharing of whale meat to maintain social and business relations. n97 This customary "gift-giving" of
whale meat extends far beyond the whaling town localities into the Japanese social world and is, in fact, critical to
maintaining business relationships, because informal, neighborly whale meat distribution is one "of the most important means of maintaining
social networks and community identity." n98 The Japanese openly admit that their JSTCW has commercial elemenis
-- indeed, the commercial elements are too extensive and obvious to flatly deny. n99 These commercial underpinnings of JSTCW were widely
recognized at a recent IWC Workshop on Community Based Whaling held in Japan in March 1997, wherein it was concluded that Japanese
Small Type Coastal Whaling has always had intrinsic commercial elements and that any attempt to
remove these commercial elements would likely destroy the very nature of the tradition that the
Japanese seek to protect. In particular, many of the workshop participants expressed the view that "it might not be possible to remove
all commercial aspects from the Action Plan. Some thought that removing commercial elements might not even be desirable, since historically
these aspects were intrinsic to the cultural and socio-economic value of small type coastal whaling." n100 The mere
proposal by the
Japanese to drastically alter the current distribution and consumption schema of JSTCW, which has been
identified as an integral part of their JSTCW culture, should perhaps raise an immediate presumption
that JSTCW should never qualify for a ASW quota -- even if the Japanese try to reduce the commercial
elements. The IWC certainly did not intend for cultural whaling practices to be manipulated to fit IWC quota criteria.
2AC A-J Relations – No Impact
Japan-Australia relations are permanent – recent whale disputes haven’t hurt them
Safia 14—reporter for Guardian Australia (Michael, “Halt to whaling program will not harm Japanese
relations, says George Brandis,” The Guardian, 3/31,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/01/whaling-program-ban-will-not-harmjapanese-relations-says-george-brandis)//FJ
The attorney general, George Brandis, has said the decision by the International court of justice to rule in Australia’s
favour, ordering a halt to Japan’s whaling program in the Southern ocean, will not affect relations
between the two countries . The UN court ruled 12-4 on Monday that Japan’s whaling program was not, as it claims, conducted for
scientific research, and should cease “with immediate effect”. The decision comes after a four-year legal campaign by
Australia to convince the court that Japan’s whale hunt was a commercial operation "in the lab coat of
science". " The relationship between Australia and Japan is an excellent relationship, " Brandis said in Perth on
Monday. He said the fact Australia and Japan could differ on this “narrow issue” but remain close was
testament to the “endearing” nature of the ties between the two nations. The ruling was handed down less than a
week before the Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, is scheduled to visit Tokyo in a bid to finalise a free-trade agreement with Japan,
Australia’s second-largest trading partner. Asked if the ICJ decision could scuttle the long-awaited agreement, Brandis said he was “sure it
wouldn't".
No spillover to broader relations – doesn’t affect key agreements in prolif and trade.
Rathus 10—EABER Scholar at the East Asian Bureau of Economic Research of the Australian National
University (Joel, “Whaling a small issue in relations between Australia and Japan,” EastAsiaForum, 3/31,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/31/whaling-a-small-issue-in-relations-between-whaling-asmall-issue-in-relations-between-australia-and-japan/)//FJ
The Japanese are not so much angry as puzzled by what they see as the eccentric love of whales in Australia – whales are considered a fish by
the Japanese. In addition, Japanese experts and policy makers are a little concerned about the Australia media’s linkage of whaling and the
bilateral relationship. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) in particular was interested enough to grant me an
interview with the principal deputy director of the Oceania division, Takero Aoyama, who offered to go on record with the observation that
‘ the
whaling issue is simply not that important a problem in our relationship. ’ (my translation) The deputy
director’s assessment is borne out by an examination of the facts. Four areas significant to the bilateral
relationship are cooperation on Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT), the future of the Acquisition and Cross
Service Agreement (ACSA), the still under negotiation Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and popular
sentiment within Japan and Australia. In each of these areas, the dispute about Japanese whaling has
caused no significant damage. First, some had been concerned about the apparent silence emanating from the International
Commission of the Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND, and had assumed the worst – that the relationship’s apparent
deterioration was real. But on the 23 March the fruits of this project were revealed. The Australian and Japanese Governments jointly
submitted a working paper to the UN for the 2010 review of the NPT Treaty, entitled ‘(a) new package of practical nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation measures for the 2010 review conference of the parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).’
The Japanese specifically cited the ICNND as the catalyst for the joint working paper. So cooperation appears to be continuing in this area.
Regarding any possible spill-over from the whaling issue, officials at MOFA’s disarmament and nonproliferation desk report that neither they nor the Australians raised whaling in their discussion. There is
still of course scope for improvement. MOFA was a little surprised to read that PM Rudd will not be attending a non-proliferation conference in
Washington next week. As the host was the United States Australia was not obliged to inform the Japanese beforehand. But as Australia is an
important partner in NPT cooperation, additional Australian effort would be appreciated by the Japanese. Second, some
in Australia are
concerned about the impact of the dispute over whaling on ACSA. But only Japan’s Deputy Defense Minister Kazuya
Shimba has made such a link. Even then, this link was made only once, and Shimba backed away it in a recent interview. Moreover, Shimba is
only one Member of Parliament. As
to the details of ACSA, one round of discussions has already occurred and the
Japanese expecting negotiations to proceed smoothly. Both sides have stated that they desire to have
the agreement in place ready to be signed by the first half of this year. It is only problems relating to negotiating
various technical details that may cause slight delay. Third, in weighing up the prospects for the conclusion of an
Australia-Japan FTA, whaling is not an important factor. One possible link between the two would be via the Ministry of
Agriculture Farming and Fisheries (MAFF). The MAFF is a major player, and obstacle, in Japan’s FTA negotiations. But the MAFF’s objection to an
FTA with Australia is already absolute. Moreover, the MAFF is finding it harder to get the ear of government. Indeed, the setting up of the
WTO/Economic Partnership Agreement promotion facility by MOFA last year reflects a desire to cut the MAFF out of decision making in the
future. So any upset caused to the MAFF is of questionable significance in the scheme of things. At the level of relations between the Japanese
and Australian Prime Ministers, whaling
could have impact. But only if the issue were to get out of hand, and
leaders on both sides seem well to understand the domestic politics of the whaling issue in both
countries and keeping it within those bounds.
China won’t start a war – tactics are passive.
Denmark 14 —(Abraham M., “Could Tensions in the South China Sea Spark a War?,” The National
Interest, 5/31, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/could-tensions-the-south-china-sea-spark-war10572?page=2)//FJ
Yet China does not want a war. The tactics at use—fishing vessels and coast guard ships, harassment and
ramming without firing a shot—are designed to stay below the level of tension that would rise to the
level of an outright conflict. Beijing even attempts to paint its own hostile actions as defensive and the
fault of the other party . A day after Chinese ships intentionally rammed and sank a Vietnamese fishing vessel, a Foreign Ministry
spokesman urged Vietnam to “immediately stop all disruptive and damage activities” and the Vice Foreign Minister said that no
country should doubt China’s determination and will to safeguard the peace and stability of the South
China Sea . The message from Beijing is clear: the other claimants should wholly accede to all Chinese claims, and any violence that result
from their resistance is wholly their responsibility.
China won’t start a war – conciliatory stance towards Japan
Carpenter 13—senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute (Ted Galen,
“Japan’s Containment Strategy against China,” Cato Institute, 6/17,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/japans-containment-strategy-against-china)//FJ
China has recently softened its overall policy in East Asia in an attempt to appear more reasonable to its
neighbors and to focus attention (and suspicion) on Japan’s ambitions . Speaking to the Shangri-La Dialogue, an
annual security conference in Singapore, in early June, Lt. Gen. Qi Jianguo , deputy chief of staff of the People’s Liberation Army ,
affirmed that China recognized Japan’s sovereignty over Okinawa and the other islands in the Ruyuku
chai n. His statement repudiated an earlier editorial in People’s Daily, the Chinese Communist Party’s
main publication, which questioned Japan’s historical claim to those islands . The People’s Daily comment had
sparked widespread worries that the Diaoyu/Senkaku dispute might escalate dramatically, with unpleasant ramifications for the entire region.
No China war – cooperation with the US is more beneficial to them.
Bandow 10— senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties (Doug,
“China: The Next “Necessary” Enemy?,” Cato Institute, 1/30,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/china-next-necessary-enemy)//FJ
It seems a lot of people in Washington are searching for the next “necessary” enemy. It is a quixotic quest. Mao’s China was an impoverished
and murderous madhouse. By some estimates, Mao Zedong killed more people than did Joseph Stalin. Mao’s Cultural Revolution consumed
many of the Communist Party faithful, just like Stalin’s purges. That China has disappeared. Today the PRC is more prosperous, open,
interconnected, and responsible than ever before. True, Beijing
is no ally, but it certainly is not an enemy. On some issues
China is a “strategic partner.” On others a “strategic competitor.” None of this should surprise U.S. policymakers. The last two decades have
been an artificial moment of history, when America dominated the globe and was able to disproportionately enforce its will on other states.
Despite the apparent assumption that any nation which disagrees with Washington is guilty of ill, even evil, intent, there is no reason to expect
the positions of other countries to always match those of the U.S. Washington obviously has important issues with
Beijing: human rights, proliferation, military transparency, trade, North Korea, global economic
cooperation, Iran, terrorism. Tensions exist: economic competition between China and America is reaching Africa and Latin America
and there is nervous wariness in Washington about East Asian security. The challenge facing the U.S. is real. But the best response is
as serious as are some of the differences
between Washington and the PRC , none of them is important enough to trigger war. For all of the
thoughtful, nuanced diplomacy, not self-righteous scare-mongering. Most important,
discussion of conflicting security interests, Beijing has neither the will nor the ability to threaten
America. And it is hard to imagine the time when China will be able to seriously threaten America.
Beijing’s military build-up is real but measured. Official PRC military spending was $71 billion last year; estimates of China’s real defense
outlays range up to $150 billion. That’s more than any other country — except America. U.S. military outlays this year will run around $700
billion. Strip out Afghanistan and Iraq and spending will still exceed $530 billion. So Washington starts with an enormous head start over the
PRC: the U.S. possesses the most sophisticated nuclear arsenal, advanced air wings, numerous carriers. And America continues to spend four
to seven times, depending on how one measures what, as much as Beijing on the military. Moreover, the U.S. is allied with every
major industrialized state other than Russia, while China is surrounded by countries with which it has
been in conflict: India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and Vietnam. The PRC is not well-positioned to launch a war of
aggression even if it had both the ability and desire to do so.
International Law DA
2AC Non-UQ
IWC has no credibility – deadlock within member states has led to decreasing whaling
regulation.
WWF 14—the leading organization in wildlife conservation and endangered species (World Wide Fund
for Nature, “IWC Current Situation,” WWF Global,
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans/cetaceans/iwc/iwc_current_situati
on/)//FJ
The current membership of the IWC is approximately evenly divided between whaling and non-whaling
nations, resulting in a political deadlock which makes it impossible to secure the ¾ majority of votes
needed to make major changes . All in all, whaling is taking place and increasing without any
international control . While the debate has raged over how best to manage commercial whaling, emerging threats to the future of all
cetacean populations have begun to be addressed by the IWC, both within its Commission and its Scientific Committee. Among the important
conservation issues under consideration have been: conservation of “small” cetaceans; incidental catches in fishing gear (bycatch); climate
change; whale watching; protection of highly endangered species and populations; whales and their environment (including toxic chemicals and
other marine pollution); ecosystem management concerns; sanctuaries; enforcement and compliance; management of "scientific whaling"; and
collaboration with other organizations. These issues, of critical importance to the future of all cetaceans, now constitute a broad and growing,
although controversial, conservation agenda within the IWC.
US has already destroyed the credibility of international law – violated it in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
Doebbler 14—an international human rights lawyer who since 1988 has been representing individuals
before international human rights bodies in Africa, Europe, the Americas and before United Nations
bodies (Curtis FJ, “American Hypocrisy on International Law,” Counterpunch, 3/6,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/06/american-hypocrisy-on-international-law/)//FJ
Americans who supported ostensibly illegal action against the people of Afghanistan and the people of Iraq that left an estimated 3 million
Afghanis and Iraqis dead and whose perpetrators have gone with almost complete immunity are now claiming that Russia is following their
example. Well, not exactly. Actually they are claiming that America was right and that Russia is wrong. Another more objective way of putting it
is that these
American lawyers and diplomats are claiming exceptionalism to international law while trying
to argue that their version of international law applies to Russia. In other words, what the United States did
to Afghanistan and Iraq, other can’t do to friends of the United States, even if the others are acting
within the ambit of international law , when the United States was not. Such hypocrisy is dangerous to
the development and application of international law and to the international community as a whole. It
is dangerous because it misinterprets international law and intentionally misleads the international
community about what international is, how it comes about, and how it works. Unlike the weapon in the hands of
a few States that think they are special, international law is in reality the lowest common denominator among all States. It is the most
fundamental rules of the international community that govern relations among all people. International law functions as basic rules that have
been agreed between States for the conduct of their affairs in a way that allows people of diverse social, political, and economic
understandings of the world to live together. International law comes into being when States agree in writing to a rule of international law
through the solemn undertaking they give by ratifying a treaty. This is not a simple act, but one which is usually done after years of careful
consideration by dozens or even hundreds of lawyers and politicians. International law may also be created by the consensus of States
expressed by their practice and their opinio juris. Again, diplomats, foreign ministers and heads of States or governments do not usually say
that something is international law unless they have considered it pretty carefully. And even if one or a few States say something is
international law that does not make it international law unless may other States agree and express their agreement by the same usually
carefully considered practices and expressions of the opinion that a rule has become international law. International applies because States
apply it, and they do so most of the time in their interactions with each other. Violations of international are actually very uncommon. Contrary
to what critics of international law often suggest, States respect international law in the overwhelming number of their actions. Its true that
there is often little that can be done to force compliance with international law, but the fact that it is usually respected merely because it has
been agreed upon is one of the most hopefully developments that the international community has witnessed over the past almost five
hundred years. It is also important to note that in contrast to the views of some Anglo-American judges, international law is superior to national
law. It is superior because it rest on grater legitimacy than any national law. International law consists of rules that have been agreed by most
of the people in the world or their representatives. Thus to view international law as subordinate to the national of any single State is to ignore
the will of the many in favour of the will of a few elites. In a world order based on the equality of States, and more recently, the principles of
the internationally agreed human rights, to treat the views of a few as superior to those of the many is pure and simple discrimination and
cannot be tolerated. Finally, like any source of law,
a large part of the legitimacy of international law depends on its
equal application to all. This means the same rules must apply to similar situations no matter which
States are involved. This where the use of international law as merely another instrument of political
rhetoric by American lawyers and diplomats is troubling. The new American effort twists international
law into an instrument justifying the actions of the United States, while criticizing the actions of other
States based misinterpretations or misapplication of international law. This is troubling because it
undermines the rule of international law. Examples of the use of force by the United States bring the hypocritical and
misleading use of international law by the United States in to clearer focus.
IWC credibility is at an all-time low – Japan, Norway, and Iceland all violate existing treaties by
exploiting loopholes.
WWF no date—the leading organization in wildlife conservation and endangered species (World
Wide Fund for Nature, “IWC Current Situation,” WWF Global,
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans/cetaceans/iwc/iwc_current_situati
on/)//FJ
The whaling nations of Japan, Norway and Iceland retain politically influential whaling industries that
wish to carry on whaling on as large a scale as possible. All three countries are exploiting loopholes in
the Whaling Convention in order to kill whales in spite of the IWC's moratorium on whaling. Politics, not
science Norway hunts whales under its objection to the moratorium, and Japan has been whaling under
the guise of "scientific research" (see WWF document "Irresponsible Science, Irresponsible Whaling"). Most recently, Iceland joined
the IWC with a formal objection to the moratorium in 2002 and, although claiming they would not undertake commercial whaling before 2006,
immediately began a “scientific whaling” program. It added to its scientific quota by commencing commercial whaling in 2006, aiming to take
30 minke whales and 9 fin whales each year. However, in
2009, Iceland dramatically increased its whaling quotas to 100
minke whales and 150 fins. Fin whales are an endangered species, and Iceland's quota of 150 fin whales
is more than three times higher than what the IWC Scientific Committee has calculated as being
sustainable. This irresponsible approach led to excessive catches and the collapse of many whale
stocks. For the government of Japan today, not much has changed. Japan avoids the moratorium on
whaling by hunting whales in both the Antarctic and the North Pacific , claiming that these whales must be killed to
answer critical management questions. Yet the science being practised by Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research - established in 1987 when the
IWC moratorium on commercial whaling threatened to end Japan's Antarctic whaling programme - is increasingly being recognised as poor
quality, misleading or simply spurious. In many cases, Japan
routinely ignores credible scientific data that do not
support its whaling policies, or conducts the whaling in the absence of critical management information.
In short, Japan is still using the scientific practices of 1946, when the Convention on Whaling was drafted, while the rest of the scientific world
has moved into the 21st Century. Overall, the
scientific research conducted by Japan is nothing more than a plan
designed to keep the whaling fleet in business , and the need to use whales as the scapegoat for over-fishing by humans.
Until the Government of Japan starts conducting objective science, and stops ignoring the findings of other researchers, it will have no
credibility in its campaign to resume commercial whaling.0020
US has violated international law in its drone policy, Iran, and Syria.
Naiman 14—http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/22631-with-international-law-in-the-news-could-wemake-the-us-comply (Robert, With International Law in the News, Could We Make the US Comply?,
Truthout, 3/23, http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/22631-with-international-law-in-the-news-could-wemake-the-us-comply)//FJ
I didn't join the chorus ridiculing the U.S. for the hypocrisy of its new romance with international law
following the Russian occupation of Crimea. Even prominent Democratic activist Markos Moulitsas mocked Secretary of State
Kerry for lecturing Russia on international law after voting for the illegal Iraq war. The hypocrisy charge has gotten good play. But we shouldn't
be completely content with the hypocrisy charge. There's something too easy about the charge of hypocrisy, a reason the charge is so popular.
You can denounce someone for being hypocritical without taking a stand on the underlying issue. If
Russia is allowed to violate
international law the way that the U.S. and Israel routinely do, it will not make the world more just.
Russia may have legitimate grievances and legitimate interests in Ukraine, but as Secretary of State Kerry rightly argued - even if he was a
hypocrite while doing so - that doesn't justify violating international law. We
don't want to live in the world in which Russia
is allowed to join the U.S.-Israel club of international law violators. We want to live in the world in which
the U.S. and Israel are held to the same standards of compliance with international law to which the U.S.
and Europe are now ostensibly trying to hold Russia. So far, Europe has proven unable or unwilling to hold the U.S. and
Israel to these standards. No European sanctions were imposed on U.S. officials when the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq. No European sanctions
have been imposed on Israeli officials for Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank. In
its drone strike policy, the U.S. violates
international law. In its Iran sanctions policy, the U.S. violates international law. In its indefinite
detention policy, the U.S. violates international law. In its failure to account for the U.S. use of torture
during the Bush Administration, the U.S. violates international law. In its arming of Syrian rebels, the
U.S. violates international law. There have been no European sanctions against U.S. officials involved in these ongoing violations.
2AC Non-UQ – AT: MMPA
MMPA doesn’t want to restore Makah whaling rights – created huge obstacles like
requiring an EIS – and it still undermines international law.
Roghair 05—Form & Style Editor, Environmental Law, 2005-2006; Ninth Circuit Review Member,
Environmental Law (David L, “Anderson v. Evans: Will Makah Whaling Under the Treaty of Neah Bay
Survive the Ninth Circuit's Application of the MMPA?,” University of Oregon: Journal of Environmental
Law and Litigation, LexisNexis)//FJ
The Tribe had one successful whale hunt since its efforts to resume whaling, landing a gray whale in 1999. n156 Litigation has prevented any
further whaling, and while
the Ninth Circuit did not rule out the possibility of the Tribe whaling under the
auspices of the MMPA permit and waiver process, n157 it appears that another in a long series of hurdles has
been placed in front of Makah efforts to assert their traditional culture. The Ninth Circuit did not
consider the canons of construction for Indian treaties outlined above , nor the deference given to such
treaties under the rulings of the Supreme Court, nor the importance of preserving long-standing rights
of the Makah Tribe . While the Ninth Circuit addressed the effects of conservation statutes in its Anderson opinion, n158 the absence of
the Supreme Court's canons of construction prevented an adequate examination of the circumstances under which the government and Tribe
negotiated and signed the Treaty of Neah Bay. In
its analysis of the MMPA, the Ninth Circuit was quick to decide that
applying the MMPA to Makah whaling rights was not discriminatory, disposing of the argument quickly with two
sentences of text among its six pages of MMPA analysis. n159 As noted above, however, it is not difficult to imagine the denial of
whaling rights as discriminatory against the Makah, even though other American citizens are similarly forbidden to go
whaling. The court did not take into account the higher value placed on whaling in Makah culture
compared to American culture at large. As one Alaskan Inupiat remarked during an earlier controversy over subsistence whaling
rights, "what would you think if we came down to your country and told you you could only kill five cows, or five chickens?" n160 The right to
go whaling could hardly have the same meaning for the average American as it [*211] would for a member of the Makah Tribe, for whom
whaling is a central part of their culture. In addition to finding the application of the MMPA to be non-discriminatory, the Ninth Circuit held,
after a more lengthy discussion, that its application to the Makah was necessary to achieve the MMPA's conservation goals. The
court did
not rule out a circumstance under which the Makah could go whaling again under the MMPA, but the
court's decision seemed to make such an opportunity nearly impossible by requiring an EIS n161 and
raising concerns over the potential future damage to whale populations and the lack of limits placed
upon the Makah's hunting methods. n162 These latter concerns seem speculative and hypothetical, rather than the kind of
imminent problem that would require an immediate cessation of whale hunting. The Ninth Circuit seems to have chosen to err
on the side of killing no whales while not giving the Makah a chance to reclaim an important part of
their heritage. n163 In sum, after a window of opportunity opened briefly to allow the Makah to resume whaling after seventy years, the
Ninth Circuit appears to have shut it indefinitely. n164 The Makah may, in theory, be allowed to go whaling as long as the court's extremely
compliance would leave the Tribe at the mercy of IWC politics, uncertain scientific
data on whale populations, and an overzealous reading of the MMPA.
rigid standards are met; but
2AC No Impact
International law fails – no credibility and empirics.
Simic 12—Associate at JPMorgan Chase (Ivan, “Failure of international law and tyranny at the Security
Council,” The Liberian Dialogue, 12/16, http://theliberiandialogue.org/2012/12/16/failure-ofinternational-law-and-tyranny-at-the-security-council/)//FJ
FAILURES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ITS LEGAL SYSTEM The United Nations Multilateral diplomacy, as practiced at
the United Nations provide the forum for exchange of experiences, conducting negotiations, exchange of thoughts in a culturally-diversified
arena. Unfortunately, however, the United Nations has not lived up to the expectations of its founding fathers. It appears that the United
Nations is doing all kind of things, but not the most important ones like: uniting people, maintaining international peace and security,
developing friendly relations between nations, among others. Since the formation of the UN in 1945, almost every
Charter of the
UN has been breached. There have been approximately 182 wars around the world since 1945, including the
most recent South Ossetia War. Currently, in contemporary days there are 32 ongoing wars which are being fought,
these include: Sri Lanka Civil War, Second Chechen War, War in Afghanistan, War in Darfur, Iraq War, War in Somalia, age-old Arab-Israel/IsraelPalestine (including al-Aqsa Intifada) conflict, among others. In addition, the UN became a war combatant itself. There have been two major
wars authorized by the Security Council; the 1950 Korean War, and the 1991 Gulf War. States that breach resolutions have different fates. The
Korean War was the first war in which the UN participated. Iraq was swiftly attacked after failing to comply with a Security Council resolution by
withdrawing from Kuwait. However, the
US, the United Kingdom, Russia, Indonesia, Morocco, Turkey, among
others have been in breach of several resolutions, sometimes for decades, without having had any
action taken against them. The United States as a member state, permanent member of the Security
Council, and founder of the UN was involved in over 100 international military conflicts since 1945, some of which were: Vietnam War,
Korean War, Gulf War, and ongoing wars such as the Iraq War (Second Persian Gulf War), War in Somalia, War on Terrorism (Operation
Enduring Freedom); Afghanistan, Philippines, Trans Sahara, among others. If
we look through world history for the last fifty
years, we can see that no country has been involved in as many military conflicts as the United States
has. Similarly, under the United Nations Charter, Charter I, ratified by the US and binding, all UN member states, including the US are
prohibited from using force against fellow member states, except to defend against an imminent attack or pursuant to explicit Security Council
authorization. However, some member states of the UN were attacked by other UN members, these include: Iraq (the US invasion of Iraq),
Afghanistan (the US invasion of Afghanistan), Former Yugoslavia (the US led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia), Georgia (South Ossetia War and
Russian interference), Panama (the US invasion of Panama), Kuwait (Invasion of Kuwait by Iraq), Somalia (invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia),
among others. The UN and its Charters were established “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”; however, since its
formation, around 38 million people lost their lives in various wars around the globe. Unfortunately, the final number of war victims will never
be known.
The UN failed to maintain peace.
The UN Charter was also breached by some member states with their recognition of
There is no such thing called “special case” or
“precedent” in international law. In International law, Charters of the UN, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a member
Kosovo, as well as with recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
state has to be respected by all member states, equally and without any exemptions.
International law fails – no enforcement – this card is specific to environmental law
Brunnee 05— Professor of Law and Metcalf Chair in Environmental Law at the University of Toronto
(Jutta, “Enforcement Mechanisms in International Law and International Environmental Law,” University
of Toronto, 3/13,
https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/brunnee/BrunneeEnforcementMechanismsInt_lLaw.pdf)//FJ
As I sat back to contemplate why “enforcement” was missing from so many of the textbook indexes, I wondered whether what Prosper Weil
once referred to as the couple diabolique obligation-sanction had cast its long shadow yet again.3 In other words, one
of the possible
explanations for the lack of focus on enforcement is that there remains a nagging sense that there is
little of it in international law, let alone in international environmental law. In turn, the absence of
enforcement, might feed a lingering sense that international law lacks effectiveness,4 something best left
unsaid. International lawyers may be tired of seeing this old idea dragged to the surface again. But, whatever the reasons for the lack of
textbook focus on enforcement, it is striking how common it remains among observers of international law to draw inferences regarding its
binding quality or effectiveness from the perceived absence of sanctions. Political
scientists often refer to the lack of
enforcement of international law to confirm their view that international law is “epiphenomenal,”
which, according to David Bederman, “is a nice way of saying it is stupid.”5 In Canada, we have seen national
political leaders make a virtue out of the epiphenomenon, reassuring constituents that seemingly intrusive international norms are not
genuinely enforceable. For example, in the context of the debate about Canada’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, then Deputy Prime Minister,
John Manley, was quoted in the press as saying that although “Canada should take its Kyoto obligations seriously if the pact is ratified…. the
accord is not a legally enforceable contract.”6 But we need not look to political scientists or politicians for doubt. At least in Canada, judges too
seem to question international law’s effect. For example, Justice Louis LeBel of the Canadian Supreme Court recently observed that “[a]s
international law is generally non-binding or without effective control mechanisms, it does not suffice to
simply state that international law requires a certain outcome.”7
Idea of a rule-based international order is a myth – major powers like the US take a
unilateral approach to international relations – illegal intervention is Libya has done
more damage to international law than breaking IWC regulations ever will.
Chellaney 13— geostrategist; the author, most recently, of Water, Peace, and War, Oxford University
Press (Brahma, “International law only for weaker states?,” The Hindu, 12/20,
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/international-law-only-for-weakerstates/article5479314.ece)//FJ
A just, rules-based international order has long been touted by powerful states as essential for
international peace and security. But there is a long history of major powers using international law
against other states but not complying with it themselves, and even reinterpreting or making new
multilateral rules to further their geopolitical and economic interests. The League of Nations failed because it could
not punish or deter some powers from flouting international law. Today, the United States and China serve as prime
examples of a unilateralist approach to international relations, even as they aver support for
strengthening international rules and institutions. Disregarding global treaties Take the U.S. Its refusal to join a host of
critical international treaties — from the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 1997 U.N. Convention on
the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, to the 1998 International Criminal Court Statute — has set a bad
precedent. Add to this its international “invasions” in various forms, including cyber warfare and mass surveillance, drone attacks and regime
change. Unilateralism
has remained the leitmotif of U.S. foreign policy, regardless of whether a Democrat or a
international law, President Barack Obama bypassed even Congress
when the U.S. militarily intervened in Libya and effected a regime change in 2011 — an action that has
Republican is in the White House. Forget
boomeranged, sowing chaos and turning that country into a breeding ground for al-Qaeda-linked, transnational militants, some of whom
assassinated the American ambassador there. Carrying out foreign military interventions by cobbling coalitions together under the watchword
“you’re either with us or against us” has exacted — as Iraq and Afghanistan show — a staggering cost in blood and treasure without advancing
U.S. interests in a tangible or sustainable manner. Meanwhile, China’s
growing geopolitical heft has emboldened its
muscle-flexing and territorial nibbling in Asia in disregard of international norms. China rejects some of
the very treaties that the U.S. has declined to join, including the International Criminal Court Statute and
the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses — the first ever law
that lays down rules on the shared resources of transnational rivers, lakes and aquifers. America’s appeal to China to act as a “responsible
stakeholder” in the global system undergirds the need for the two to address their geopolitical dissonance and the issues arising from it. Yet,
the world’s most powerful democracy and autocracy have much in common on how they approach
international law. Might remains right For example, the precedent the U.S. set in an International Court of Justice (ICJ) case filed by
Nicaragua in the 1980s still resonates, underscoring that might remains right in international relations, instead of the rule of law. The ICJ held
that Washington violated international law both by supporting the contras in their insurrection against the Nicaraguan government and by
mining Nicaragua’s harbours. The U.S. — which refused to participate in the proceedings after the court rejected its argument that it lacked
jurisdiction to hear the case — blocked the judgment’s enforcement by the U.N. Security Council, preventing Nicaragua from obtaining any
compensation. The
only major country that has still not ratified UNCLOS is the U.S., preferring to reserve the
right to act unilaterally. Nonetheless, it seeks to draw benefits from this convention, including freedom of navigation of the seas. For its
part, China still appears to hew to Mao Zedong’s belief that “power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” So, it will not consider international
adjudication to resolve its territorial claims in, say, the South China Sea, more than 80 per cent of which it now claims arbitrarily. Indeed, it
ratified UNCLOS only to reinterpret its provisions and unveil a nine-dashed claim line in the South China Sea and draw enclosing baselines
around the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. Worse still, China has refused to accept the UNCLOS dispute-settlement
mechanism so as to remain unfettered in altering facts on the ground. The Philippines, which has since 2012 lost effective control to a creeping
China, of first the Scarborough Shoal and then the Second Thomas Shoal, has filed a complaint against Beijing with the International Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Beijing, however, has simply refused to participate in the proceedings, as if it were above international law.
Whatever the tribunal’s decision, Beijing will shrug it off. Only the Security Council can enforce any international tribunal’s judgment on a noncompliant state. But China wields a veto there and will block enforcement of an adverse ruling, just as the U.S. did in the Nicaraguan case. Even
so, Beijing has mounted punitive pressure on Manila to withdraw its case, which seeks to invalidate China’s nine-dashed line. Beijing’s
precondition that the Philippines abandon its case forced President Benigno Aquino to cancel his visit to the China-ASEAN Expo in Nanning
three months ago. Beijing’s new air defence zone, while aimed at solidifying its claims to territories held by Japan and South Korea, is
provocative because it extends to areas China does not control, setting a dangerous precedent in international relations. China and Japan, and
China and South Korea, now have “duelling” ADIZs, increasing the risks of armed conflict, especially between Japan and China, in an
atmosphere of nationalist grandstanding over conflicting claims. Japan has asked its airlines to ignore China’s demand for advance notification
of flights even if they are merely transiting the new zone and not heading towards Chinese territorial airspace. By contrast, the Obama
administration has advised U.S. carriers to obey the prior-notification demand. There is a reason why Washington has taken a different stance
on this issue than its ally Japan. Although the prior-notification rule in American policy applies only to aircraft headed for U.S. national airspace,
the U.S., in actual practice, demands advance notification of all civilian and military flights through its ADIZ, irrespective of their intended
destination. If other countries emulated the example set by China and the U.S. to establish unilateral claims to international airspace, a
dangerous situation would emerge. Before every country asserts the right to establish an ADIZ with its own standards, binding multilateral rules
must be created to ensure the safety of commercial air traffic. But who will take the lead — the two countries that have pursued a unilateralist
approach on this issue, the U.S. and China? Convention and interpretations Now consider the case of the Indian diplomat, whose treatment
India’s National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon called “despicable and barbaric.” She was arrested as she dropped off her daughter at a
Manhattan school, then strip-searched and cavity-searched and kept in a cell with drug addicts and prostitutes for several hours before posting
$250,000 bail. True, this consulate-based diplomat enjoyed only limited diplomatic immunity under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations. But this convention guarantees freedom from detention until trial and conviction, except for “grave offences.” Can a wage dispute
between a diplomat and her domestic help qualify as a “grave offence” warranting arrest and humiliation? Would the U.S. tolerate similar
treatment of one of its consular officers? The harsh truth is that the U.S. interprets the convention restrictively at home but liberally overseas
so as to shield even the spies and contractors it sends. A classic case is the one that involved the CIA contractor, Raymond Davis, who fatally
shot two men in 2011 in Lahore. Claiming Davis to be a bona fide diplomat with its Lahore consulate who enjoyed immunity from prosecution,
Washington accused Pakistan of “illegally detaining” him, with Mr. Obama defending him as “our diplomat.” The U.S. ultimately secured his
release by paying “blood money” of about $2.4 million to the relatives of the men. Despite
a widely held belief that the present
international system is pivoted on rules, the fact is that major powers — as in history — are rule makers
and rule imposers, not rule takers . They have a propensity to violate or manipulate international law when it is in their interest to
do so. Universal conformity to a rules-based international order still seems distant.
Gray Whales DA
2AC Gray Whales – Non-UQ
Alt causes to whale extinction – melting sea ice and warmer waters.
Their author Mulvaney 13—conservationist and contributor to Discovery News (Kieran, “Gray
Whale Recovery Fuels Whalewatching Success,” Discovery News, 3/6,
http://news.discovery.com/animals/whales-dolphins/gray-whale-recovery-fuels-whalewatchingsuccess-130306.htm)//FJ
The authors of that study do caution, however, that this figure could refer to the entire Pacific population, including
the almost-vanished western Pacific grays, and almost certainly reflects a time when the Pacific coastal
marine ecosystem was very different to today’s. Indeed, when several hundred emaciated dead gray whales washed ashore
in 1999 and 2000, many scientists suggested it was a sign the population had rebounded so well that it was now at its ‘carrying capacity’ – the
ability of the ecosystem to support it. Concerns
remain for the future: not from whaling, but from changes in the
Arctic, as melting sea ice and warmer water alter the benthic ecology of the region to the potential
detriment of the bottom-feeding grays. For now, however, grays are flourishing and the whalewatching business alongside it,
as tourists flock to see them in the calving lagoons of Baja California and on their journeys northward and southward.
Extinction inevitable – Western North Pacific population is depleted.
NOAA 13—(National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, “Gray Whale,” 5/13,
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/graywhale.htm)//FJ
Systematic counts of Eastern North Pacific gray whales migrating south along the central California coast have been conducted by shore-based
observers at Granite Canyon most years since 1967. The most recent abundance estimates are based on counts made during the 1997/98,
2000/01, and 2001/02 southbound migrations, and range from about 18,000-30,000 animals. For more information, see the Stock Assessment
Reports. In contrast,
the Western North Pacific population remains highly depleted and its continued survival
is questionable . This population is estimated to include fewer than 100 individuals.
2NC Gray Whales – No Link
No link – gray whales are thriving in the squo – Makah whaling doesn’t trigger the
impact as squo whaling overwhelms.
Schweninger 08—professor of American literature at the University of North Carolina Wilmington
(Lee, Listening to the Land, University of Georgia Press, July 2008, pp. 205-206)//FJ
Unlike Ama's act in the novel Power, however, the Makah tribe's hunt was very literally legal: tribally, nationally, and internationally. In challenging the whale hunt, however, Hogan challenges and calls into ques- tion the very concept of the West's notion of legality. In Sightings, she
writes lhal "when it conies to whaling and other animal kills [the hunters] are never tried, though the judgment goes down in history" (Peterson
43-44; Hogan's empha- sis). In the specific context of international whaling, the language of the 1855 treaty is straightforward: "The right of
taking fish and of whaling or sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens
of the United States" ("Treat)' of Neah Bay** Article 4). According to a statement by the United States Delegation, the "International Whaling
Commission . . . adopted a quota that allows a five-year aboriginal subsistence hunt of an average of four non-endangered gray whales a year
for the Makah Indian Tribe" (U.S. Delegation). In May of 2002 the International Whaling Commission "reaf- firmed the Makah quota of 20 gray
the gray whale is no longer on an
endangered list . The federal government's "environmental assessment of the [Makah] hunt found that it
[would] not adversely affect the gray-whale- stock's healthy status, which is currently at more than
22,000. The gray whale was taken off the U.S. Endangered Species Act list in 1994** (U.S.Delegation). At the same time the Makahs
were granted the right to hunt 4 whales a year, Russia's Chukchi people were granted the right to take
120 gray whales , further indicating that the species is thought to be health}*. Given the 1855 treat}*, the National
whales to be 'harvested' through 2008" (Peterson 161). It is important to note that
Fisheries interpretation, the Interna- tional Whaling Commission's ruling, and the whales' nonendangered sta- tus, then, the Makahs hold and
had reaffirmed the legal right to hunt the gray whale.
2AC No Impact
Oceans resilient - adaptation
Kennedy 2 (Victor, Environmental science prof, “Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Global Climate
Change”, http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/marine)
There is evidence that marine organisms and ecosystems are resilient to environmental change. Steele (1991) hypothesized that the
biological components of marine systems are tightly coupled to physical factors, allowing them to
respond quickly to rapid environmental change and thus rendering them ecologically adaptable. Some
species also have wide genetic variability throughout their range, which may allow for adaptation to
climate change.
Warming collapsing ocean ecosystems now
Shah 14 (Anup, writer for Global Issues, Climate Change Affects Biodiversity,
http://www.globalissues.org/article/172/climate-change-affects-biodiversity, 1/19/14)
The link between climate change and biodiversity has long been established. Although throughout
Earth’s history the climate has always changed with ecosystems and species coming and going, rapid
climate change affects ecosystems and species ability to adapt and so biodiversity loss increases. From a
human perspective, the rapid climate change and accelerating biodiversity loss risks human security (e.g. a major change in the food chain upon
which we depend, water sources may change, recede or disappear, medicines and other resources we rely on may be harder to obtain as the
plants and forna they are derived from may reduce or disappear, etc.). The UN’s Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, in May 2010, summarized some
concerns that climate change will have on ecosystems: Climate change
is already having an impact on biodiversity, and
is projected to become a progressively more significant threat in the coming decades. Loss of Arctic sea
ice threatens biodiversity across an entire biome and beyond. The related pressure of ocean
acidification, resulting from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is also already
being observed. Ecosystems are already showing negative impacts under current levels of climate
change … which is modest compared to future projected changes…. In addition to warming
temperatures, more frequent extreme weather events and changing patterns of rainfall and drought can
be expected to have significant impacts on biodiversity. — Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010),
Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, p.56 Some species may benefit from climate change (including, from a human perspective, an
increases in diseases and pests) but the
rapid nature of the change suggests that most species will not find it as
beneficial as most will not be able to adapt.
Empirics prove no impact
NG 12 (National Geographic, “Mass Extinctions, What Causes Animal Die Offs?”,
science.nationalgeographic.com, 2012, https://science.nationalgeographic.com/prehistoric-world/massextinction)
More than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. As new species evolve
to fit ever changing ecological niches, older species fade away. But the rate of extinction is far from
constant. At least a handful of times in the last 500 million years, 50 to more than 90 percent of all
species on Earth have disappeared in a geological blink of the eye. Though these mass extinctions are
deadly events, they open up the planet for new life-forms to emerge. Dinosaurs appeared after one of
the biggest mass extinction events on Earth, the Permian-Triassic extinction about 250 million years ago.
The most studied mass extinction, between the Cretaceous and Paleogene periods about 65 million
years ago, killed off the dinosaurs and made room for mammals to rapidly diversify and evolve.
Impact Modules
2AC AT: Japan Soft Power
Middle Eastern countries have incentives to not escalate instability
Maloney and Takeyh 7 (Susan- Senior fellow for Middle East Policy at the Saban Center for Middle
East Studies at the Brookings Institution and senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on
Foreign Relations, Ray-DPhil is an Iranian-American Middle East scholar, former United States
Department of State official, and a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is also an
adjunct professor at Georgetown University, “Why the Iraq War Won’t Engulf the Mideast,”
International Herald Tribune, 6/28/7,
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0628iraq_maloney.aspx)
Yet, the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, and others are very unlikely to go to war either to protect their own
sect or ethnic group or to prevent one country from gaining the upper hand in Iraq. The reasons are fairly straightforward. First, Middle
Eastern leaders, like politicians everywhere, are primarily interested in one thing: self-preservation. Committing
forces to Iraq is an inherently risky proposition, which, if the conflict went badly, could threaten
domestic political stability. Moreover, most Arab armies are geared toward regime protection rather
than projecting power and thus have little capability for sending troops to Iraq. Second, there is cause
for concern about the so-called blowback scenario in which jihadis returning from Iraq destabilize their
home countries, plunging the region into conflict. Middle Eastern leaders are preparing for this possibility. Unlike in the 1990s,
when Arab fighters in the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union returned to Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and became a source of instability,
Arab security services are being vigilant about who is coming in and going from their countries. In the last
month, the Saudi government has arrested approximately 200 people suspected of ties with militants. Riyadh is also building a 700 kilometer
wall along part of its frontier with Iraq in order to keep militants out of the kingdom. Finally, there
is no precedent for Arab
leaders to commit forces to conflicts in which they are not directly involved. The Iraqis and the Saudis did send
small contingents to fight the Israelis in 1948 and 1967, but they were either ineffective or never made it. In the 1970s and 1980s, Arab
countries other than Syria, which had a compelling interest in establishing its hegemony over Lebanon, never committed forces either to
protect the Lebanese from the Israelis or from other Lebanese. The
civil war in Lebanon was regarded as someone else's
fight. Indeed, this is the way many leaders view the current situation in Iraq. To Cairo, Amman and Riyadh, the situation in Iraq is worrisome,
but in the end it is an Iraqi and American fight. As far as Iranian mullahs are concerned, they have long preferred to press their interests
through proxies as opposed to direct engagement. At a time when Tehran has access and influence over powerful Shiite militias, a massive
cross-border incursion is both unlikely and unnecessary. So Iraqis will remain locked in a sectarian and ethnic struggle that outside powers may
abet, but will remain within the borders of Iraq. The
Middle East is a region both prone and accustomed to civil wars.
But given its experience with ambiguous conflicts, the region has also developed an intuitive ability to
contain its civil strife and prevent local conflicts from enveloping the entire Middle East.
Japan can’t access soft power- territorial disputes and historical constraints
Thi Thu 2013 (Duong Thi Thu, Thesis submitted to the Victorian University of Wellington in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of International Relations, 2013. “Japan’s Public Diplomacy as an Effective Tool in Enhancing its Soft Power in Vietnam - A
Case-study of the Ship for Southeast Asian Youth Exchange Program.”
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/3288/thesis.pdf?sequence=2)
However, Japan still faces
a number of obstacles in maintaining and enhancing its soft power. First of all,
because of constitutional restriction (as stated in Article 9 in Japan‟s constitution which prohibits Japan to wage war), Japan
has no other option than resorting to the expansion of its soft power. Therefore, as noted by Utpal Vyas, Japan is
experienced in using softer forms of power due to externally imposed constitutional restrictions on its use of military force in international
affairs89. Simply put, while hard power is restricted, soft power plays a crucial role in Japan‟s national power. However, according to Lam,
there are several limits of Japan‟s soft power including historical constraints, lack of CNN or BBC-like
institution or its unpopular language90. Historical constraints include historical issues during the previous war
(the well-known case is wartime comfort women mainly from the Philippines, Republic of Korea, China and Taiwan) and recent disputes
(for example, the visit of Prime Minister Koizumi to Yasukuni Shrine or the history textbook). Another limit of Japan‟s soft power
is that the country is still distrusted by many East Asian states and involved in territorial and resources
disputes with China and South Korea over the Senkaku (Diaoyu in Chinese) and Takeshima (Tok-do in Korean) islands respectively91.
Therefore, while the factors like the establishment of universal institutions or the popularization of Japanese language to the world take time or
seem to be difficult, there is an urgent need for Japan to settle historical issues with its neighboring countries; otherwise,
exert its soft power efficiently in these countries.
Japan cannot
AT: Politics
Obama Won’t Push
Don Young would push the plan – he’s pushing for development programs that trump
NEPA – specific to bypassing regulations. Obama has openly opposed the plan.
Capriccioso 7/3 (Rob, 7/3/14, “Pushing Obama to Appoint a Tribal Economic Development Council”,
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/07/03/pushing-obama-appoint-tribal-economicdevelopment-council-155632?page=0%2C1, Accessed 7/17/14 //RJ)
“I can’t imagine that a Council on Native American Affairs led by the tribes themselves wouldn’t be able to come up with 10 times more than
what a roomful of federal officials has been able to do so far,” Stearns adds.¶ One
of the reasons the administration has been
reluctant in some cases to solicit stronger tribal input on economic development issues is the fact that
many tribal leaders want federal laws that they feel impact their growth relaxed or removed.
Progressive laws, like the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), are hindrances to development on many reservations,
several tribal leaders have testified before Congress.¶ “These and other laws create conflicting allegiances for the federal Indian trustee,
bogging down tribal development decisions to the point that tribes cannot compete fairly in most private sector markets,” says Philip BankerShenk, a Native Affairs lawyer with Holland & Knight. “It
may be audacious to think the role of the federal Indian
trustee should trump laws like the APA, NEPA, or ESA, but it is no more audacious than the present
paralysis caused by how those laws now neuter the federal Indian trusteeship.Ӧ Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska),
chairman of the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs, is one who believes the
administration has been slow in supporting economic self-determination for tribes because that goal
often conflicts with its more progressive ideals. For instance, the congressman’s recent Native American
Energy Act received tribal support from its conception to its passage in the House as part of a larger bill,
yet the administration has opposed it all along the way. The bill, if ever signed into law by the
president, could open up many opportunities for tribal energy development – both of the renewable
and non-renewable type – yet it would also give tribes more of an ability to challenge NEPA and other
regulations that hold them back from such development. Thus, the administration has been opposed—a
major source of consternation to tribal advocates who note that Indian oil, gas and construction in
aggregate garnered copy5 billion for a select group of tribes in 2013. Many more tribes could be able to
benefit if Young’s legislation became law.
Obama knows it’s unpopular and doesn’t want to spend political capital on natives.
Capriccioso 11 (Rob, December 12, 2011, “A CALL FOR OBAMA TO SPEND POLITICAL CAPITAL ON
IMPORTANT NATIVE ISSUES”, http://nativestrength.com/tag/obama-administration/page/2/, Accessed
7/17/14 //RJ)
“So what is the other branch of government, the executive branch, doing for Native Americans as 2011 comes to a close?” asks Cohen. “Is
the White House pushing for Mikkanen to get a hearing? No. Is it pushing Congress to help change the
procedural rules in Indian trust cases so that American Indian litigants can have more access to federal
documents that pertain to their claims against federal officials? No. Those things would involve the
expenditure of political capital – and the administration has shown repeatedly its unwillingness to
spend in this area.”
CoR Shields
Empirically not tied to the president – Chairman of the Committee on Resources
pushed the plan.
Pombo 5 (Richard, R-Calif, Committee on Resources, 109th Congress 1st Session, EXPRESSING THE
SENSE OF THE CONGRESS UPHOLDING THE MAKAH TRIBE TREATY RIGHTS,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-109hrpt283/html/CRPT-109hrpt283.htm //RJ)
Specifically, H. Con. Res. 267 measure expresses the sense ¶ of Congress that requiring the Tribe to adhere to the MMPA ¶ waiver process is
contrary to the Tribe's treaty. It further ¶ expresses that the government should uphold the Tribe's treaty ¶ right to hunt gray whales. During
the full committee markup of ¶ the concurrent resolution, the Chairman offered two amendments . ¶ The
amendment to the resolving clause clarifies that Congress ¶ disapproves of making the Tribe obtain a waiver under the MMPA ¶ to pursue its
treaty right to hunt gray whales. The underlying ¶ text of the concurrent resolution expresses disapproval of an ¶ ``abrogation'' of the Tribe's
treaty right. While the word ¶ ``abrogation'' was intended to make a strong statement, it is ¶ not an appropriate term to use in the context of
treaty rights, ¶ and the term is accordingly deleted by the amendment.¶ The amendment to the preamble makes technical corrections, ¶ except
for the amendments to the seventh and eighth ``whereas'' ¶ clauses. The seventh and eight clauses are amended to clarify ¶ that Congress finds
that the Tribe's treaty rights are ¶ seriously impaired, not legally abrogated as declared in the ¶ underlying resolution.¶ COMMITTEE ACTION¶ H.
Con. Res. 267 was introduced on October 17, 2005, by
Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA).
The bill ¶ was referred to the Committee on Resources . On October 19, ¶ 2005, the Full Resources Committee
met to consider the ¶ concurrent resolution. Chairman Pombo offered an amendment to ¶ the resolving
clause to clarify that Congress disapproves of ¶ requiring the Makah Tribe to obtain an MMPA waiver. It
was ¶ adopted by voice vote. Chairman Pombo then offered an amendment ¶ to the preamble to make
several technical corrections, and to ¶ clarify that Congress finds that the Tribe's treaty rights are ¶
seriously impaired. It was adopted by voice vote. The ¶ concurrent resolution was then ordered favorably reported to ¶ the
¶
House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 21 to 6, as ¶ follows:
Link Not UQ
Obama passed tribal policy last week.
ICTMN Staff 7/16 (“Obama Allocates $10 Million for Tribal Climate Change Adaptation,”
indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/07/16/obama-allocates-10-million-tribal-climate-changeadaptation-155890, Accessed 7/20/14 //RJ)
President Barack Obama
on July 16 released another set of climate-change-resilience guidelines, this batch
geared specifically toward tribes, and announced the allocation of 10 million to help tribes cope with
climate change.¶ The allocation was one of a number of measures announced at the final meeting of the
White House State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience,
created by Obama last fall. Karen Diver, chairwoman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Minnesota, and Reggie
Joule, mayor of the Northwest Arctic Borough in Alaska, were the tribal officials designated to serve on the task force.¶ The money will
fund the development of resource management methods, climate-resilience planning, and youth
education and empowerment. Climate adaptation grants will also be awarded for the development of climate-adaptation training
programs, assessment of vulnerability, monitoring and other aspects of learning about the effects of climate change. Adaptation
planning sessions will be offered, and tribal outreach will be funded with the money as well, Interior said.
Administration officials said such measures are sorely needed.¶ “From the Everglades to the Great Lakes to Alaska and everywhere in between,
climate change is a leading threat to natural and cultural resources across America, and tribal communities are often the hardest hit by severe
weather events such as droughts, floods and wildfires,” said Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, chair of the White House Council on Native
American Affairs, in a statement. “Building on the President’s commitment to tribal leaders, the partnership announced today will help tribal
nations prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change on their land and natural resources.Ӧ Obama
has been highlighting
the effects of climate change on Native peoples in his efforts to construct a plan for dealing with the
inevitable changes.¶ “Impacts of climate change are increasingly evident for American Indian and Alaska Native communities and, in
some cases, threaten the ability of tribal nations to carry on their cultural traditions and beliefs,” said Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin
Washburn. “We have heard directly from tribes about climate change and how it dramatically affects their communities, many of which face
extreme poverty as well as economic development and infrastructure challenges. These impacts
test their ability to protect
and preserve their land and water for future generations. We are committed to providing the means
and measures to help tribes in their efforts to protect and mitigate the effects of climate change on their
land and natural resources.Ӧ The Interior Department will also team up with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
create a subgroup on climate change under the White House Council on Native American Affairs, the DOI said. This cooperation between Jewell
and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will entail working with tribes to pool data and information on climate change effects that are directly
relevant to issues faced by American Indians and Alaska Natives. Traditional
and ecological knowledge will be a
cornerstone of the initiative.¶ “Tribes are at the forefront of many climate issues, so we are excited to
work in a more cross-cutting way to help address tribal climate needs,” said McCarthy in the statement. “We’ve
heard from tribal leaders loud and clear: when the federal family combines its efforts, we get better results—and nowhere are these results
needed more than in the fight against climate change.”
Obama passed pro-Native policies in June – should have triggered the link.
Capriccioso 7/3 (Rob, 7/3/14, “Pushing Obama to Appoint a Tribal Economic Development Council”,
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/07/03/pushing-obama-appoint-tribal-economicdevelopment-council-155632?page=0%2C1, Accessed 7/17/14 //RJ)
To be fair, the
administration and the council have indeed reached out to tribal leaders to solicit their ideas
for bold and wide-sweeping improvement. During last year’s White House Tribal Nations Summit, for
instance, Obama held a meeting with a small group of Indian leaders who suggested that the federal
government encourage more collaboration between private business and tribes by convening a
gathering of such entities. Ray Halbritter, Oneida Nation representative and CEO of Nation Enterprises, parent company of Indian
Country Today Media Network, said after that presidential meeting, which he attended, that an advantage in having the administration
facilitate such an endeavor is that it has power that tribes and Indian organizations lack.¶ “If the administration backed such a plan, there would
be an automatic serious nature to it,” Halbritter said at the time. “Businesses would perhaps feel more obliged to collaborate and to find ways
to partner with Indian nations.Ӧ The
administration has already made tentative and limited progress in
improving reservation economies. During the president’s June trip to the Standing Rock Sioux
Reservation, the White House noted in a press release that the administration has in several instances
already partnered with Native communities by granting multi-millions of dollars in funding, by
providing increased technical assistance on various federal-tribal programs, and by pushing for legal
and regulatory tribal economy-focused improvements.
Obama recently pushed for Iceland to abide by the moratorium on whaling.
Valdimarsson 4/1 (Omar R., Obama Vows Continued Pressure on Iceland to End Whale Hunting,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-01/obama-vows-continued-pressure-on-iceland-to-endwhale-hunting.html //RJ)
President Barack Obama directed U.S. officials to continue pressuring Iceland’s government to abide by
the International Whaling Commission’s moratorium on whaling.¶ Senior officials and delegations meeting the
representatives of the north Atlantic island’s government should be notified that cooperation with the U.S. is based “on the Icelandic
government changing its whaling policy,” Obama wrote in a memo to his cabinet officers, released today by the White House.¶ The
presidential memo follows a Jan. 31 statement from the Interior Secretary Sally Jewell in which she
expressed concern over Iceland’s whaling. Obama in a similar September 2011 memo said the matter
should receive the “highest level of attention” from his cabinet.¶ Iceland’s whalers have permits to hunt 216 minke
whales and 154 fin whales this year, according to the Fisheries Ministry. The figures are determined annually in line with
proposals from its Marine Research Institute. Iceland, which doesn’t consider minke whales and fin
whales to be endangered, exported $11 million worth of whale meat in 2011 to Japan.¶ Iceland’s catch levels
are based on assessments of the Scientific Committees of the IWC and the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, the ministry said in a
Feb. 13 statement. “There can be no doubt that they are sustainable,” the ministry said.¶