Vegans of Color

Because we don’t have the luxury of being single-issue

Anti-Whaling Advocates and the Far Right July 12, 2009

In writing about the Makah whaling controversy in her book Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, Andrea Smith notes:

The Coalition for Human Dignity documents how animal and environmental rights groups, such as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) and the Progressive Animal Welfare Society, collaborated with far-right Republican legislator Jack Metcalf to oppose the Makah. Metcalf has openly spoken at the meetings of overtly racist and anti-Semitic organizations and has called for the abrogation of Indian treaty rights. These groups, instead of developing strategies to negotiate their differences with the Makah that respected Native sovereignty, advocated for the U.S. to abrogate its 1855 treaty with the Makah that guarantees their right to whale hunt. What these “environmentalists” did not consider is that if they had been successful in legitimizing the abrogation of one treaty, it would have the effect of delegitimizing all treaties. They would be destroying the efforts of Native peoples across the country who are opposing corporate control through the use of treaties. Many of the leaders of these organizations, such as Dave Forman, Farley Mowat, and Paul Watson of SSCS, are also promoting an anti-immigration platform in environmental groups such as the Sierra Club… Also collaborating with SSCS is Brigitte Bardot, ally of the leading neofascist political party in France, the National Front. She is also overtly anti-immigrant, particularly anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. In Le Figaro, she stated: “Now my country, France, my homeland, my land, is with the blessing of successive government again invaded by a foreign, especially Muslim, overpopulation to which we pay allegiance.” (emphasis mine)

I know a lot of vegans adore the SSCS; I wonder how many of them knew about their connections to right-wing bigots.

Before some commenters trot out the same racist, colonialist arguments that frequently pop up in such discussions, you might take a look at this post about dolphin slaughter or this one about Brigitte Bardot & save your time.


49 Responses to “Anti-Whaling Advocates and the Far Right”

  1. “right to whale hunt. ”
    What the fuck? Are you serious?

    Can you quote that line and stand behind it while at the same time calling yourself vegan?

    Granted, we ought to respect the sovereignty of other nations and we ought not to use racism or colonialism to further our goals, but… and this is a big but, no one has a fucking “right” to whale hunt. No one.

    • johanna Says:

      Yawn. This is why I directed people to the earlier post about dolphin slaughter, in which statements like yours were trotted out yet again.

      Where did I say I support a right to hunt whales?

      Also, I think we’ve had quite enough of people questioning others’ right to call themselves vegan on this blog lately.

      • Yeah, I read that dolphin slaughter post when you first wrote it, and I commented there, too. So… what?

        Here’s my suggestion: when quoting comments that express your idea yet contain elements that you disagree with, omit the parts that you disagree with. They are distracting. For example, instead of what you wrote, write this:

        “These groups, instead of developing strategies to negotiate their differences with the Makah that respected Native sovereignty, advocated for the U.S. to abrogate its 1855 treaty with the Makah […] What these ‘environmentalists’ did not consider is that if they had been successful in legitimizing the abrogation of one treaty, it would have the effect of delegitimizing all treaties.”

        See, with just a few ellipses you can emphasize the broken treaty/ broken promises/ assertion of power and de-emphasize Smith’s anti-whale sentiment.

  2. hart444 Says:

    It’s easy to accuse somebody of “collaboration”, but without citing any facts of said collaboration, the accusation rings hollow.

  3. Laura Says:

    Well, shit. Color me uninformed; I had no idea. I followed this blog only after the other two related posts.

    Thanks for the info, sincerely.

  4. Wendy Says:

    This is a somewhat convoluted issue, I think. I just finished reading a book of essays called “Sightings,” about the pacific gray whales and a number of essays focused on the Makah hunt. I can’t pretend to know enough about soveriegnty rights of first nation peoples, but I don’t think anything can justify the hunt. From my reading, in fact, a lot of Makah were opposed to the hunt, as were other northwestern Pacific nations, such as the Quileute (the irony here is that while many people of all races were opposed to this hunt, a good number were fishermen who didn’t think it particularly nasty to bait and kill and fish).
    Anthony Marr has done some impressive research on this hunt, actually, and between his work and the essays I’ve read there seems to be a lot of implication that the Makah hunt was more of a smokescreen for Japanese commercial whaling interests than any return to a spiritual and traditional life for the Makah.
    I can see a long-term danger in environmental groups’ encouraging the deligitimazition of American Indian treaties,a and it’s unsettling to see Sea Shepherd working with such bigoted politicians.
    It would be ideal to see groups like SSCS working from a higher ethical standpoint than collaborating with bigots. Nevertheless, if you look as the SSCS’ page they are not particularly interested in anything other than stopping whaling and sealing, and they have been particularly active in Canada and Europe as well as the antarctic.
    I think this is where things get really complicated, because if you’ve ever listened to Paul Watson he is something of an egomaniac, but he’s doing a pretty decent job of patrolling waters that should be sanctuary for whales.
    I guess as a white person I don’t fully understand on a deep level the issue with treaties. I guess I tend to see humans as more capable of standing up for themselves than non-humans, and I see more groups working for human and native rights, rather than helping animal rights. I can tell you, and this isn’t completely comparative, I’m sure, but as a lesbian also I would always put animal rights before lesbian and gay rights. I mean, if it were a question say of legalizing marriage *or* stopping the fur trade, there’s no question of what’s more important. But I understand this isn’t equal to the subjugation of other races by Europeans. Still, because animal exploitatiin is not solely the province of Europeans or people of European descent this can get to be a tricky issue. It sounds to me like the author of the paragraphy quoted above, Andrea Smith, doesn’t give a shit about how animals are treated, and as vegans and animal activists I think we ought to take her biases into consideration as well as the very disturbing idea of Paul Watson working with a racist politician.

    • johanna Says:

      Whether or not the whale hunt should be allowed is almost besides the point of my post. What I wanted to draw attention to was the collaboration of animal rights activists with racist, colonialist politicians & groups, instead of them trying to have dialogue w/the Makah from a viewpoint that respected their autonomy.

      “I guess as a white person I don’t fully understand on a deep level the issue with treaties.”

      I guess not. How much do you know about the continuing oppression of Native Americans in this country?

      Regarding your last paragraph: it’s not either/or. Many of us do not have the luxury of choosing between our varied identities & many of us don’t want to. Politics & tactics that suggest we do are very problematic & frankly, part of the reason a lot of POCs are turned off from animal rights/veg*nism.

      I don’t consider activists who are so single-issue that they are happy to shit on other communities my allies at all.

      Andrea Smith’s personal stance on animals does not take away from the issue of SSCS allying themselves w/really dubious people!

      • Kristie Says:

        “I don’t consider activists who are so single-issue that they are happy to shit on other communities my allies at all.”

        Well said. I think this is a crucial point missing from so much of the animal-rights (and environmentalist, and vegan, and so many other causes) dialogue.

    • Ida Says:


      I’m always aghast that the first people to complain that other movements aren’t addressing the oppression of other animals are the same people who refuse to ally themselves with those other movements. The perfect example is when you claim American Indian activist and scholar Andrea Smith “doesn’t give a shit” about other animals while at the exact same time you marginalize the struggle of American Indians in resisting White supremacy, colonialism and genocide.

      First, Andrea Smith is a vegetarian who advocates against the exploitation of nonhuman animals. I bring this up only because your assumption that Smith “doesn’t give a shit about how animals are treated” demonstrates your bias, not hers. So lets take that into consideration.

      Second, you write, “I would always put animal rights before lesbian or gay rights.” Again, this is your bias, the subtext of which is an unacknowledged endorsement of homophobia and heterosexism. For instance, if it would prevent some cruelty to a nonhuman animal, would you uncritically endorse a political alliance that further institutionalized oppression of yourself and other lesbians and/or made you and other lesbians as a group more vulnerable to homophobic attacks? Because this is exactly what you’re suggesting, and it is a very real issue.

      That is, since you believe lesbians’ rights are less important than animals’ rights, you must be supportive of the fact that the Humane Society of the United States endorsed the notoriously homophobic Republican Rick Santorum for the U.S. Senate. You must also support PETA vice-president Bruce Friedrich’s statement declaring the homophobic former Republican representative of California Bob Dornan — who, while campaigning against a female opponent, proudly proclaimed, “Every lesbian spear-chucker in this country is hoping I get defeated” — one of “the best advocates for animals.”

      In contrast to what you’re framing of the issues suggests, I firmly believe we should never accept a situation were we have to choose between oppressions! Yet, whether you like it or not, these are exactly the sorts of situations you are suggesting we allow to be perpetuated when nonhuman animal advocacy organizations collaborate and ally with far-right, hate-mongering politicians.

      When Sea Shepherd allied itself with Metcalf’s White supremacist agenda it worked to create and promote a situation where the survival of a nation of American Indians is wrongly placed in competition with the survival of a species of whales. This situation ought never have been created in the first place, and that is the point that Smith is making. Sea Shepherd made a political decision to work within the White supremacist logic of colonialism and genocide, “instead of,” as Smith wrote, “developing strategies to negotiate their differences with the Makah that respected Native sovereignty.”

      It’s important to remember that the Makah are an oppressed sovereign nation with in the United States. Some apologists of Sea Shepherd have pointed out that some people of the Makah nation did not support the whale hunt, but this doesn’t excuse the colonialist actions of Sea Shepherd. (This is not unlike how some war apologist justify Bush’s, and now Obama’s, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by claiming some people in side Afghanistan oppose the Taliban, an issue Smith also addresses in her book Conquest.) If anything, it only proves that Sea Shepherd in fact had the alternative option of a strategy that respected Native sovereignty and should have worked to negotiate with the Makah people. However, instead of taking that option, Sea Shepherd made a political pact with the longstanding tradition of federally administered colonial genocide against American Indians.

      In sum, your argument proposing that Smith “doesn’t give a shit” about nonhuman animals because she dares to questions the alliance of an nonhuman animal advocacy organization with the continuing genocide of American Indians does little more than perpetuate White supremacy, colonialism, and ultimately genocide. Your logic would similarly claim a lesbian doesn’t give a shit about nonhuman animals if she expresses criticism of nonhuman animal advocates collaborating with homophobic politicians, thus demanding that she willingly accept the continued institutionalization of her oppression and therefore further perpetuate anti-lesbian heterosexism and homophobia. In both these cases your argument is just plain fucked up!

      Preventing cruelty to other animals is not an excuse for genocide or homophobia! The false framing of differing oppressions as somehow in competition with each other only works to further oppression as a whole.

  5. Crys T Says:

    You know, I was watching Stephen Fry’s programme about his travels across the US last night, and it was the episode where he was in Alaska & Hawaii. In the Alaska segment, the issue of whale hunting came up and, seeing these people and a bit of the lives they lead, I was forced to think of it from more than one perspective.

    The whole not being able to afford being single-issue comes in loud and clear in these cases.

  6. hart444 Says:

    I think it’s totally racist to think that native peoples are weak and can’t survive without killing whales.

    • supernovadiva Says:

      i think it’s racist for you to think native people are strong if they live up to your ill concieved standards.

      • Jesse Says:

        Defensive much? How about actually addressing his point without one-line quips?

        Hart444 is right: if the Makah are a sovereign nation like all others, then it has to be just as wrong when they whale as when the Norwegians or Japanese whale. Any argument that supports their right to whale but still maintains that it is wrong for other nations to do it has to appeal to something special about the Makah that makes them exempt from whaling standards *simply because they are the Makah.*

  7. Joselle Says:

    Johanna said: “Whether or not the whale hunt should be allowed is almost besides the point of my post. What I wanted to draw attention to was the collaboration of animal rights activists with racist, colonialist politicians & groups, instead of them trying to have dialogue w/the Makah from a viewpoint that respected their autonomy.”

    I just want to add that I’m shocked that this point wasn’t obvious from the get-go. Without reading the comments, it was very clear that this is what Johanna was expressing and wanting to discuss. I was shocked about the first few responses and how Johanna’s post could end up being twisted by some.

    The fact that there’s been more re-explaining in the comments rather than discussion lately has, I think, less to do with the bloggers being unclear and more to do with the fact that people are not fully reading and thinking about posts before leaving comments. Instead, they are trying to dictate immediately who and what is vegan around here. I find it disturbing that it is happening so much lately. If the comment isn’t going to be about what’s being discussed or you’re only going to skim through a post until your knee jerks, then don’t leave a comment. It’s thread-jacking.

  8. Joselle Says:

    hart444, spewing the word “racist” without any basis won’t be tolerated here. Comments are moderated and I’ll trust that Johanna and the other bloggers–myself included–will just not approve comments that don’t stay on-topic.

    • Noemi Says:

      why ya’ll hateful racist wannabe vegans!
      this seems to be the response to just about everything here these days. What gives?

      • Crys T Says:

        It seems the self-appointed vegan police are not accustomed to having their privilege made so explicit.

  9. Anonymous2 Says:

    Unfortunately, sometimes I think that organizations have to align themselves with other organizations to get something bigger accomplished…even though they might not really believe in the collaborating organizations’ viewpoints.

    For example, I might not like all of PETA’s beliefs or tactics, but I understand their importance in fighting animal abuse etc…And even if I did not like them, I wouldnt necessarily rally against them in an AR event…But thats just me.

    When the question arises “I know a lot of vegans adore the SSCS; I wonder how many of them knew about their connections to right-wing bigots.”, even if some know, my guess is that those vegans do overlook connections for what THEY BELIEVE [ not nessarily me ] is the more important cause.

    • johanna Says:

      You won’t find many fans of PETA on this site.

      Again… *points to tag line of blog* for some of us, the intersections of oppressions are not merely academic, they’re not just subjects for a blog discussion.

  10. adam Says:

    Greta Gaard (2001) wrote a pretty nice essay on negotiating “our” environmental ethics with different cultures in cross-culturally appropriate ways. Like Andrea Smith, Gaard acknowledgeds that there are differences of opinion within indigenous communities: within the Makah, the tradition of whale hunting was specific to a male aristocracy. So rather than just saying “bad Makah,” there may be more collaborative approaches to take with people in that culture as Smith suggests. (see Deane Curtin’s summary or listen to the Animal Voices interview)

    I myself don’t know Smith’s position on “animal rights” and veganism, but I do know she spoke at a United Poultry Concerns conference in 2007 on the theme of comparing atrocities. Her presentation was called “Animal Exploitation, Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy.”

    • johanna Says:

      Thanks for the links Adam, I’ll have to check them out when I have more time.

      Smith’s presentation is taken from an essay she wrote (I think the title is the v. similar “Heteropatriarchy & the Three Pillars of White Supremacy”–I have a photocopy of it on my living room table that I’ve been meaning to read for weeks!). I didn’t know she spoke at UPC… interesting.

  11. cjm Says:

    “collaborated with far-right Republican legislator Jack Metcalf … Metcalf has openly spoken at the meetings of overtly racist and anti-Semitic organizations…”

    Someone needs to start relying less on the association fallacy.

    As for abrogating treaties: it seems to me that (1) a treaty originating in 1855 might not be the best lens through which to address a practice that directly affects an endangered species in the midst of a global ecological crisis in 2009, and (2) curtailing native “whaling rights” would hardly be the first or most egregious treaty violation inflicted on Native Americans by the US government (see, for example, that whole genocide thing).

    Imperialism and colonialism are bad. Mass extinction and human-induced ecological collapse, however, are worse – if there isn’t a habitable environment, colonialism becomes kind of a moot point. In this case, there’s really no way to sustainably hunt an endangered marine species in a time of rising ocean acidification. I don’t think you have to be a single-issue anything to look at the issues that matter to you and prioritize some over others.

    • johanna Says:

      Soooo… basically because there have been other treaty violations that were worse, this one doesn’t matter?


      (And, no, I don’t think it’s too much to ask to hope that one’s supposed allies would not associate themselves w/people who blatantly shit on oneself. Repeat: for some of us this is not a nice & neat mind-absorbing tactical theoretical issue.)

      • Jesse Says:

        If you’ve ever heard Paul Watson of SCCS speak, he is very blatant about his priorities. His oft-heard justification for any tactic which might draw criticism is

        “Our clients are whales and marine life, show me a whale who disagrees with our tactics.”

        In this regard, he resembles the pre-Mecca Malcom X who called for change “by any means necessary.” That is effectively what he is saying: Damn the consequences, save the whales.

        Now, if you disagree with his tactics and his allies, that’s fine, there’s plenty to be upset about. CJM has a point though: you are committing the association fallacy. SCCS is not guilty of racism by seeking the support of a racist. They are opportunistic and short-sighted but that shouldn’t be surprising given the statements of Cpt. Watson.

        Now, if you could articulate how exactly you are impacted by this in a tangible, non-theoretical, non-intellectual manner that would shed a lot of light on where you are coming from — more so than referring people to the tagline of your blog.

        I am a person of color and I don’t feel a strong desire to defend the integrity of the treaty of 1855 in this case. I don’t feel that it would be an act of oppression to ask the Makah to be bound by international whaling laws. Tradition is not a compelling argument to me.

        Where I will agree with you is that partnering with sympathetic Makah is a much more effective tactic in the long run.

      • johanna Says:

        Jesse — I still maintain that who you choose to ally yourself w/ & associate yourself w/matters.

        Are you suggesting that only those people who are directly immediately affected by an issue (in a “tangible, non-theoretical, non-intellectual” manner) have the right to have a position on it? That’s very interesting.

      • Jesse Says:

        No I’m not.

        You have referenced several times that your blog’s tagline somehow indicates that this is a present issue for you, and that it is only an intellectual and theoretical one for others.

        I would really like to know in what is the way that this issue affects you more than another person who is not a member of the Makah tribe.

      • johanna Says:

        I’m referring to the intersectional aspects of oppression, which for many people (both blogging here & elsewhere) is not a tidy little theoretical thing but something that affects their daily lives. It’s also something which people who experience privilege often overlook, whether deliberately or not.

    • adam Says:

      I suppose curtailing intrinsic “animal rights” of whales would “hardly be the first or most egregious treaty violation inflicted on [animals] by the US government (see, for example, that whole [factory farm] thing).” Either you accept your logic and live with the consequences or you acknowledge that you accept (cultural) genocide as long as it isn’t as bad as it used to be.

    • Sarra Says:

      There is no hierarchy of oppression, cjm. It is privileged fallacy to assert otherwise.

      • C Says:

        If there is no hierarchy of oppression how do we vegans, and/or animal rights activists who are knowledgeable of the entanglement of oppressions of humans and nonhumans, handle such situations as this?
        Are we to support the “rights”* of humans who infringe on the “rights”* of nonhumans just because exploitation of other animals is a tradition in their culture and because they are also an oppressed group themselves? (I should add the obvious, that animal exploitation is part of just about every culture on Earth, and is always justified by tradition…) How do we not play the Oppression Olympics in this situation, and other similar situations? Are we to side with the humans because only other humans can accuse us of being insensitive to their way of life or should we side with the animals who are being exploited and killed because we believe it’s wrong to do such things to those animals, no matter who’s doing it to them? Can there be a balance?
        How do we stand up for nonhuman animals who are exploited by oppressed groups without coming across as insensitive or colonialist or what have you?

        I’m sorry if this is off the original topic of animal rights groups siding with right wing racist bigots (also see – PETA/Pat Buchanan), which I do find to be problematic.

        I hope I’m not seen as needing to be “breastfed” simply for asking questions relevant to the post.


        *I’m using “rights” in sort of a Francionian sense, as a way of protecting the interest of an animal, human or nonhuman, from not being exploited by others.

      • johanna Says:

        C, a start would be to dialogue with communities like the Makah from a standpoint that recognizes their autonomy.

        The Oppression Olympics is a losing game. It’s not the answer.

      • C Says:

        Agreed! That certainly would have been a better start than the one SSCS seems to have taken.
        I guess what I’m wondering, and trying to work through in my head, is how vegans can ever not seem insensitive, intrusive and/or colonialist when it comes to openly rejecting the animal exploitation based traditions of any culture, especially when criticizing an oppressed group.
        Should one that understands that other animals deserve to live without being exploited, especially in the name of tradition, recognize autonomy even if that means standing by as innocent beings are exploited and killed? Anti-speciesists understand that whales, as well as other animals, are autonomous also, in their own way. Recognizing and respecting their autonomy would mean protecting them from exploitation, especially when said exploitation is just for the sake of personal taste or tradition.
        Does a stance like that (which is central to veganism) inherently put vegans at odds with other social justice causes? In general, animal oppression isn’t taken as seriously as other forms of oppression so, until this changes, perhaps we will always come across as insensitive or colonialist just for being (vocally) consistent with our values. Does that make it wrong (or insensitive or colonialist) to have those values though?

      • johanna Says:

        I think one way to engage in a more productive & respectful fashion would be to take the lead from people w/in that culture who oppose the practice in question: what are they doing, what do they need from us? Sometimes that might be nothing, & that is fine, I think: I don’t think every battle is for every person to get involved in necessarily. Sometimes they may need monetary support, or letters, or help spreading the word. Sometimes they just may want others to step back & not do more harm than good by coming into a situation that they may not understand fully.

  12. supernovadiva Says:

    thanks for pointing this out. i really don’t deal with animal rights groups because they seem to talk down to people, especially to or about people of color.
    tribal hunting as well as small family farms- i think someone brought the latter up, maybe it’s in my head- is on a much smaller scale than what the corporate giants achieve. one example for me is seeing how the buffalo didn’t nearly become extinct till the white man saw profit to be made in their slaughter. the treaties gets in the way of profit. with those gone, the rape of the enviroment will begin. if you think the whales will be protected by breaking those treaties, i think you’re wrong. the whales did not near extinction because of the natives. scapegoating can mean big business. its a distraction from the slide of hands.
    i think johanna and the rest of the posters do an excellent job. they are not here to breastfeed you. they’re taking time out of their lives to share information. like everything else you have questions about, google it or go to the library. i hope i was on topic.

  13. Joselle Says:

    supernovadiva, I just love your breastfeeding comment! No doubt some will wonder if the milk from our breasts is in fact Vegan Enough!

    • adam Says:

      Joselle, breast milk is an animal product no matter which way you look at it; no wonder the vegan police espouse formula(ic thinking)! 🙂

      Aslo, it’s bad enough that poc have to put up with shit from the police, it sucks that voc have to deal with the vegan police as well.

  14. Andy Says:

    I just wanted to say thanks for this post. I try to follow your blog regularly and I’m very grateful and impressed.

    I learned about SSCS and Jack Metcalf a couple years ago living in Washington state and its done serious damage. Cheers to you for bringing it up where others have stayed silent! For some of the other folks commenting, please just look into the history of settler colonialism, empire and the importance of treaty rights (especially as they’re used now).

    I was going to suggest the Greta Gaard article, but its been linked above.

  15. Sarah Says:

    This situation reminds me a of a film I saw on PBS, “Standing Silent Nation.”

    From the website’s film description:

    “In April 2000, Alex White Plume and his Lakota family planted industrial hemp on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota after other crops had failed. They put their hopes for a sustainable economy in hemp’s hardiness and a booming worldwide demand for its many products, from clothing to food. Although growing hemp, a relative of marijuana, was banned in the U.S., Alex believed that tribal sovereignty, along with hemp’s non-psychoactive properties, would protect him. But when federal agents raided the White Plumes’ fields, the Lakota Nation was swept into a Byzantine struggle over tribal sovereignty, economic rights and common sense. “

  16. jenna Says:

    sometimes the comments on this blog just exhaust me.

    johanna, thank you for this post. i think it and (most of) the subsequent discussion are really important, and all too often it is swept under the rug for being “not vegan” or “not vegan enough.”

  17. C Says:

    After doing a little more reading on this issue i think it’s well worth mentioning that the Makah also sided with colonialist forces to carry out the 1999 whale hunt. They received a $310,000 grant from the federal government, as well as anti-tank guns, 50 caliber military rifles, with armor piercing ammunition. How would they obtain these weapons without collaborating in some way with the military – an oppressive, colonialist institution, no doubt with elements of right wing bigots in the ranks? And why are they not criticized for their affiliations when SSCS is?

    • johanna Says:

      Oooh, the old double-standard, reverse-racism card!

      Who the Makah choose to align themselves w/is a different issue from the troublesome alliances of Sea Shepherd, which is the point of this post, & it’s a pretty typical derailing tactic to use the old “but those POCs are colonialist/racist/homophobic/classist/etc. etc. etc. too!” argument in this kind of post.

  18. […] I am not a particular fan of Sea Shepherd, this is a heinous event. However — I’m sure the rest of the vegan blogosphere will be […]

  19. […] posted before about my discomfort with the rhetoric of the anti-whaling […]

  20. Native Says:

    I find it quite odd as a Native American to see the fact that you, commentators, have grouped Makah with “American indians” as if they are not a race themselves. You may as well combine british, russian, italian, and all the other european races with middle eastern races such as Iranian and Pakistanian and call them all “Caucasians”. There are more whales (26,000), with a quota of 5 whales per year, in this world than the people that belong to the Makah tribe of barely 1,000 people. 1 whale = more than 200 people fed. You may be agaisnt whale hunting, but you cannot tell me that thease people when there is no food in the freezing place of ALASKA where they recieve supplies only a FEW times a YEAR should not be allowed to do what they can to SURVIVE. I’m sorry that I value a endangered species of human’s lives more than I value the whale. The fact that Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is working with racist people just shows what organisms they really want eliminated off this earth, the Makah. And the next will be the rest of the Native American tribes in the United States and Canada, then the Brazillian tribes, then the tribes in Africa! So on! Thease people are not lucky enough to be on the shores of Maimi beach where they can have the option of obtaining food from the market. Why is there such favortism when “The [International Whaling] commission does recognize the claim of the Siberian natives of Chukotka, and therefore has set a quota for hunting gray whales – but the U.S. government’s unilateral decision to allow the Makah to hunt these whales has remained controversial among commission members”. If thease animal rights groups really cared about the whales theyd be after the Siberian natives too, but they’re not. Some of you may say that they have been able to live without whale hunting for some time, but how can a group of people be “survivng” if theyre numbers have been continuing to dwendle? and if you were worried about the fact that the whales are being killed by people you need to look at how much man power (with the technology of spears and one gun) it takes to actually have one killed when then Makah do so. Then you’d see that its not as easy as APPLE PIE! and that for them to make a actual effect in the whale populaiton that would be alarming in one year is nearly impossible. Quit going after the little people and actually go after those who are causing the whales to decrease in numbers so rapidly!

  21. “Anti-Whaling Advocates and the Far Right Vegans of Color” ended up
    being a remarkable posting, cannot help but wait to look over alot more of ur postings.
    Time to squander a little time on the net lol.
    Many thanks ,King

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s