Self-esteem

In an interesting case with the Native Tribe Makah from Washington State, USA, the argument was made that subsistence whaling should not only be based on physical survival, but also on the concept of self-esteem. This argument stated that, while whaling was no longer necessary for the Native tribe to survive, it was important to their cultural heritage. The Makah won in court. The opposing side, such as environmentalists, claimed that their whaling habits went against the definition of subsistence whaling, as that is based on the right to a "continuous tradition", when the Makah had not successfully whaled for a century at that point. The Makah counterposed that the interruption in their tradition was not their own choice, but forced upon them by colonial settlers.

This last argument is an interesting one, as it challenges what counts as tradition, but more so our view on it, and our ideas of "righteousness". The Makah put out a statement asking for people's sympathy in the matter, and asking them to "decolonise their attitudes toward the hunt", claiming their long history and culture as both fishers and whalers.

In response, the environmentalists asked the Makah to decolonise their own views when it comes to "non-human nature".

Source: https://sci-hub.st/10.4324/9781315716558

A note on the term decolonisation:

What do they mean when talking about decolonisation? Decolonisation does not just refer to the regranting of sovereignty to colonised nations and people. It is also a term used to express a critical lense towards our daily attitudes and beliefs. It challenges our "normal" and asks us to be critical to it, as our normal, our world and our society, is shaped on a history of colonisation, and the information we grew up with and consume today is still shaped by it.

Source: https://www.theindigenousfoundation.org/articles/decolonization-in-everyday-life

Can environmentalists and animal rights activists claim a position of decolonisation from the Makah? Or can only a colonised people do so? Maybe neither can fall back on this, as it is not about where our opinions come from, but about our values today. But are our values today inherently Western and Imperialist?

source: https://www.faroeislands.fo/

History and Denmark

The Faroe Islands were integrated in Danish territory in 1720, and have been part of the Kingdom of Denmark since 1848-1849. The concept of a nationalist attitude started growing from 1880's, so very shortly after the occupation of the Islands. This feeling stayed strong for quite a long time, and after the second world war, a referendum was posted on the Faroe's independence. A majority voted in favour, and declared their independence. The independence was dissolved by the Danish Crown, but the aforementioned Home Rule Act was implemented. Since, the Faroe government has been getting more and more autonomy in administration.

Independence

Today, a lot of independence can be found in the Faroe Islands in their relation to Denmark. They refused to join the European Economic Areas for fear of losing control over their fishing areas, a very important economic and cultural practice for the Faroese. Additionally, they have signed their own independent bilateral agreement with the EU.

The living standards of the Faroe Islands are very high, but took a hit during the 90s, when fishing supplies became less and less, and a blame-game between the Faroe Islands and Denmark was posed. A new referendum of independence followed in 2000, but after a warning from the Danish king that independence would come with full financial responsibility, another agreement was signed. In 2005, the Take-over Act meant the most autonomous responsibility for the Islands yet.

Today, questions of independence and further self-determination are still posed, with referendums taking place every few years. As of now, the Faroe Islands are still part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00291951.2021.1951837?needAccess=true

The foundations and Tylor’s cultural revolution

Cultural relativism has its roots in Edward B. Tylor’s 1871 definition of culture as "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society." Tylor’s broad definition shifted the understanding of culture, moving away from the elitist view that associated culture only with Western art, music, and literature. Instead, he positioned culture as a universal human trait, encompassing the practices and beliefs of all societies.

Though Tylor’s view has faced criticism—most notably from Clifford Geertz, who called it "self-defeating eclecticism"—his approach marked a significant change in anthropological thought. By treating culture as a characteristic of all societies, Tylor laid the foundation for relativistic perspectives that value cultural expressions based on their own context, rather than through a universal standard.

Ethical and metaethical dimensions

Building on these anthropological roots, cultural relativism has grown into an important concept in ethics. John J. Tilley explores how the theory suggests that moral judgments and practices are valid only within their own cultural contexts. This challenges the idea that moral truths are universal.

Tilley distinguishes between various types of relativism, including agent relativism (where moral judgments are based on the norms of the individual’s culture) and appraiser relativism (where they depend on the norms of the observer’s culture). Despite its complexity, cultural relativism remains a metaethical theory, it does not provide a clear method for evaluating moral judgments or determining their truth across cultures.

Key debates and critiques

Cultural relativism’s appeal lies in its rejection of ethnocentrism, advocating for respect toward different cultural practices. However, it has also faced criticism. Detractors argue that it can be used to justify harmful practices under the pretense of cultural differences, raising concerns about its ethical limits. For example, critics question whether cultural relativism could excuse practices that violate human rights, creating a tension between relativism and universal ethical frameworks.

Tilley also points out a key issue: cultural relativism lacks a way to resolve moral conflicts between cultures or within a single culture. By restricting moral validity to specific cultural contexts, it risks causing moral fragmentation and leaves unanswered questions about how cultures can engage in meaningful ethical dialogue.

Conclusion

Cultural relativism remains a cornerstone of both anthropology and ethics, known for fostering cultural understanding and challenging moral absolutism. Still, critics warn about the dangers of moral relativism, particularly the potential for ignoring injustice in the name of cultural difference. As Ulin suggests, the value of cultural relativism lies in its ability to encourage critical reflection on how we engage with cultural diversity, balancing respect for cultural differences with the need for universal ethical standards.

Sources

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30052725

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30052726.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aaa83a9317fbf3d9ad10599ba19a70e18&ab_segments=&initiator=&acceptTC=1

In 2018, Japan decided to leave the ICRW, meaning commercial whaling in the country could be continued again. Even though before 2018 they kept on whaling under the name of scientific research, this decision was very appalling for anti-whaling activists. The question remains whether this decision might influence other countries to do the same. In 2024, Japan built a new, large mothership, Kangei Maru, for its commercial whaling practices. Smaller boats catch the whales and bring them to the mothership for further processing and freezing. This new ship left in may on an 8 month hunting tour in the northern waters of Japan. The boat seems extremely large and the question arises whether Japan is planning to stay in its own waters or to hunt whales in the southern ocean, near Antartica. Japan leaving an international agreement related to environmental practices, raises concern about how it will be possible to collaborate internationally to tackle other aspects of the environmental crisis.

source:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/30/asia/japan-whaling-mothership-kangei-maru-intl-hnk/index.html

Paul Watson

Paul Watson, founder of anti-whaling movement Sea-Shepherd, the Captain Paul Watson Movement and co-founder of Greenpeace, was arrested on the 21st of July 2024. Controversies around the activist had been going on for several years already, because of his direct protest methods, such as trying to block whaling boats. Because of this, he also left Greenpeace as well as Sea-Shepard, clashing with his colleagues. In July 2024, he tried to intercept the Japanese Kangei Maru. He got arrested in Greenland due to an international arrest warrant issued by Japan. Japan's charges against him consist of stopping a lawful business, trespass, damage to property and assault on people on the Japanese ship Shonan Maru 2 in 2010. For those charges, Japan demands an extradiction from the prison of Greenland. If he is extradicted, he might be facing a jail sentence of 15 years. Other marine activists are divided between supporting him and thinking he went too far.

sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/22/paul-watson-arrested-greenland-sea-shepherd-founder-and-anti-whaling-activist

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/01/sea-shepherd-paul-watson-whaling-activist-prison

Iceland

In Iceland, the license of the only remaining commercial whaling company, Hvalur hf, finished at the end of 2023. Against some hopeful expectations, the license is again granted to the company in 2024.  

source:

https://seashepherd.org/2024/09/06/this-appalling-brutality-and-cruelty-is-blatantly-in-contravention-of-icelands-own-animal-welfare-act-says-mark-carwardine/

Krill fishing

On the 10th of September 2024, a Stanford University research was published, stating that Antartica Krill fishing has been rising dramatically. Krill are an important nutrition source for whales and the decline of Krill population can have negative effects for whale survival and recovery.

source:

https://www.colorado.edu/today/2024/09/11/increased-krill-fishing-threatens-whale-comeback

The Faroe Islands

The Grindadráp, whaling in the Faroe Islands, continues until now and there seems to be no intention to stop it. In 2024, around 750 cetaceans died during whaling practices. 

source:

https://seashepherd.org/2024/11/20/iceland-and-the-faroe-islands-europes-last-bastions-of-cetacean-slaughter/

source:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/dec/12/how-whale-poo-is-connected-to-climate-and-our-lives

1. Why is environmentalism more important than cultural traditions?

2. Why are cultural traditions more important than environmentalism?

Which arguments do you find convincing, which not?

sources:

https://iwc.int/commission/history-and-purpose

https://us.whales.org/about/

https://www.esi.utexas.edu/files/045-Learning-Module-Effects-Whaling.pdf

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/Categorical_Imperative.htm

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeremy-Firestone/publication/239360737_Aboriginal_Subsistence_Whaling_and_the_Right_to_Practice_and_Revitalize_Cultural_Traditions_and_Customs/links/0deec531612577ca11000000/Aboriginal-Subsistence-Whaling-and-the-Right-to-Practice-and-Revitalize-Cultural-Traditions-and-Customs.pdf

On the international stage, the regulation of whaling was presented in 1927 by the League of Nations over concerns of the over-exploitation of whales. Over the next decade, the International Agreement for the Regulation of whaling was formed through multiple iterations and amendments of treaties. The final treaty made a massive headway on the protection of whales, forming the International Whaling Commission. However, it only set limits on the number and type of whales able to be caught and killed commercially. 

Over the next few decades, popular culture and conservation movements saw a greater appreciation for whales and dolphins in the public eye. This brought forward the bigger social movement of ending commercial whaling for good. International actors from states to ngos including Greenpeace and the Australian Marine Conservation Society made efforts to form a moratorium on whaling with the International Whaling Commision. 

The League of Nations Conference on Whaling is held, London.

1930

The Bureau of International Whaling Statistics is established to record catches.

1931 

Convention for Regulation of Whaling opens for signature, London.

1935

Convention for Regulation of Whaling achieves the number of signatures required for ratification.  Concerns are expressed over its effectiveness.

1937

International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling is signed, London.  Limits on whaling, but did not ban commercial whaling and was only to be in effect for a year before evaluating the continuation at the end.

1938

Protocol amending the 1937 Agreement is signed in London.

1946

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) is signed, Washington, D.C.

1966

Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas takes steps to counter overexploitation of marine life, including whales.

1972

The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment proposes a moratorium on commercial whaling which did not pass. Similar attempts were made in the consecutive years that also failed.

1975

Greenpeace launched their first anti-whaling campaign against Soviet whaling fleets in the north Atlantic.

1982

The world’s nations banded together to stop commercial whaling by voting for a moratorium at the International Whaling Commission (IWC)

1986

Ban on commercial whaling came into force through the moratorium in the schedule.

1994

The IWC voted to create the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (31,000,000 km²)

2002

Sea Shepherd launched its first campaigns in the Southern Ocean to combat illegal whaling. 

2010

The IWC reached crisis point and the meeting came perilously close to approving a return to commercial whaling. Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) was part of the international negotiations that fought off the disastrous compromise at the eleventh hour.

Native whaling as a topic of interest only became a legal factor in the moratorium, where native sustenance whaling was included and regulated to allow for the continuation of cultural practices within reason.

Today there are many legal conventions protecting whales around the globe, including but not limited to:

• International Convention of the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW)

• Moratorium on whaling 1982

• Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)

• North American Marine Mammal Commission

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)