The Makah are a Native Indian tribe who have recently decided to enact theirtreaty rights, and start to hunt for whales. These actions have caused an uproarin North America.
The Natives state that they are not doing anything butexercising their legal rights. Opponents to their hunting of whales argue thatthe Makah are a group of uncivilized and inhumane individuals, and that they areharming nature. The reportage of the controversy surrounding the Makah can beseen as ethnocentric in many ways. Through the language used by the mediainvolved in the controversy, one can constantly see the Native people beingviewed as inhumane savages.
In turn, this language allows readers to be sentmixed messages about the Makah and their position in the whaling dispute. Finally, the protestors themselves have contradictory arguments which leads oneto question the motivating factors behind their position. In order to fullyunderstand the whaling controversy, it is necessary to understand the history ofthe Makah. They were a group of Native people who hunted gray whales.
As aresult of their increased trade with the Europeans, the ‘white man’ decided toalso enter this hunt for the whale. This competition between the Makah and the’white man’ lead to the whale coming close to extinction. Due to their love fornature and respect for the whale, the Makah decided to voluntarily refrain fromhunting whales. It is important to note however, that in 1855, the Governor ofWashington State agreed to the Treaty Of Neah Bay, which gave the Makah a rightto hunt for whales.
This is what is at the heart of the controversy. The Makahhave recently enacted their hunting rights of the whale after seventy years, andare now resuming their hunt for whales. The Makah reasoning is a relativelysimple one. In 1946, the gray whale population was 2000, and now their count isover 26,000. They believe that it is safe to hunt for whales again.
The Makahhave been a group of people who have relied on whale hunting. . They used theblubber from the whale to feed their families, and they used the rest of thewhale to provide themselves with shelter and tools. However, their opponentshave dismissed this practice of hunting whales as inhumane.
Through the languagethat is being used by the media, one can see Native people being viewed assavages. The language being used is not blatantly discriminatory against theNative people, but is done in a subtle, yet powerful way, in order to evoke amessage that Native people are inhumane. One of the reasons for this negativecommentary regarding Native people hunting for whales could be due toethnocentrism. This is the belief that one’s own culture is considered to benormal, therefore, other cultures are considered abnormal.
The media carefullyuses words that show their bias towards the Native People. The media tries tomake the Makah look like a band of savages. While writing about a recentanti-whaling demonstration, Peggy Andersen writes, “In a simmering disputethat ended with a scuffle and arrests, angry Makah Indians pelted a protest boatwith rocks as the two sides bickered over a tribal plan to hunt graywhales. ” The wording of this opening paragraph leads the reader to thinkthat it was Makah who were causing trouble, and that they were the one’s thatwere arrested.
However, if one were to complete the article, they would realizethat this was not the case. Another example of media bias against the Makahpeople is when Jonathan Dube writes, “As much as it’s possible for one deadanimal to give new life to an entire nation, that’s what has happenedhere. ” Dube is implying that it is impossible for an animal that has diedto bring life to a nation, however, that is what has occurred. He does notunderstand how killing this whale could give life to the Makah, and therefore,he conveys this message of doubt to his readers. Dube is indirectly stating thatthe Makah need to kill in order to have life.
Many readers and viewers of themedia are being sent mixed messages about the Makah and the whaling situation. As seen above, the media is using certain language that portrays the Makah in anunflattering manner. However, this also has another major impact. The truemessage, and plight of the Makah is being lost and overshadowed by this harsh,and biased language. People reading newspaper articles probably know nothingabout the history of the Makah and are being given misleading information, whichis shaping their thoughts about the Makah.
For example, Dube writes, “TheMakah eagerly awaited the revival of the whale hunt, a tribal tradition for 1500years. The tribe ceased the activity in the 1920’s because commercial whalinghad brought the gray whale to the brink of extinction. ” While thisstatement is true, it does not state the identity of the commercial fishermen. . The way in which Dube wrote the previous statement, the reader gets the feelingthat the Makah were the commercial fishermen who were responsible for the nearextinction of the gray whale population. This altered truth leads many of thereaders into having a negative viewpoint of the Makah as they do not haveaccurate information about the history of Makah whaling.
In actuality, Websterwrites, “The Makah had to stop their hunts in the 1920’s after whaling bywhites decimated the food source. ” The reader/viewer does not learn fromthe media that it was the white man who decimated the whaling population and notthe Makah. Also, there is much media discussion as to whether or not the Makahneed to hunt for whales. The viewers of the media are being fed informationstating that the Makah do not need to hunt for whales because they have otherfood that they can eat. An article in the Oregon Live from May 18th, 1998states, “The Makah request to go whaling fit within the InternationalWhaling Commission’s aboriginal subsistence whaling provisions. The problem,though, is that the subsistence requirement is bogus.
The tribe has other foodsources to meet nutritional needs; it hasn’t had whales to eat since the 1920’s. However, this biased information is hiding the true message. The Makah need towhale hunt. Tribal leaders estimate there’s enough meat and blubber to give eachfamily 10 to 20 pounds’ worth.
They can also make lamp oil from the whale’s oil,tools from the bones, and baskets from the baleen. That is a big deal for thisnation, considering half of the households live below the poverty line and percapita income is $5, 000. Finally, the protesters are sending mixed messages aswell. Their statements regarding this dispute can be seen as beingcontradictory. The protestors are using many different arguments in order toshow their disgust for Makah whaling. However, they are displaying ethnocentrismin these views.
Their main issue is that only the Makah have this right towhale, and not everyone else. Some protestors say that their concern is for theprotection of the whale, and has nothing to do with racism as some Native peoplehave charged. Kenny Clark, of the Oregon based Sea Defense Alliance says,”I don’t see the race issue. It’s about an animal people feel verypassionate about and people are just angry.
” However, if it has nothing todo with a race issue, then one has to question the reasoning for the threatsbeing made against the Makah. At one rally, protestors held up such signs as,”Save the whales. Kill a Makah. ” Also, a bomb threat was made to alocal school at the Puyallup Reservation after a Puyallup canoe joined the Makahas the whale was towed to shore.
This led Terre Rybovich, of the Coalition forHuman Dignity to state, “One whale was killed. In response, the lives ofhundreds of Indian children were threatened. ” Another fact that shows thatthe issue is not simply about the protection of the whale is the statements madeconcerning the possibility of the Makah beginning to sell the whales that theyhave successfully hunted. The protesters are trying to imply that the Makah wantto whale so that they can sell commercially. They argue that one gray whale canfetch as much as one million dollars in Japan.
But yet, the Makah have agreed towhale no more than 20 whales until 2002, which was 5 per year at the time of thecontroversy. In conclusion, one can clearly see that the reporting of the Makahwhaling controversy was ethnocentric in many ways. The language used by themedia to describe the whale hunting showed bias towards the Makah and held themout to be inhumane savages. As well, the media is responsible for not providingthe reader with an accurate picture of the Makah and the importance of whalingin their culture. Finally, protestors are angry that only the Makah have theright to whale, and they are displaying this in various ways such as racistactions.
The white man took away their tradition in the 1920’s, and they willtake it away again. This will be done either by giving the right to whale toeveryone, and once again bring the gray whale close to extinction, or bycrushing the remains of the tribe until they give up their right on their own. Bibliography(1999, May 18) “Stop the Whale Hunt”. {October 30, 1999} Available:http://www.
oregonlive. com/oped/99/05/ed051801. html Author Unknown. (1999, May22) “Racism Enters Whale Dispute”.
{October 25, 1999} Available:http://www. spokane. net/news-story-asp?Date=052299;ID=s580242;cat=Anderson, Peggy. (1998, November 2) “Melee during anti-whalingdemonstration Shakes both sides”.
{November 2, 1999} Available: http://oregonlive. com/todaysnews/9811/st110213. htmlAnderson, Peggy. (1999, May 21) “Anti- Makah Protests Turn Ugly”.
{November 3, 1999} Available: http://www. spokane. net/news-story-body. asp?Date=052199;ID=s580004;cat=}Dark, Alx. (1999, April) “The Makah Whale Hunt”. {October 28, 1999}.
Available: http://www. conbio. rice. edu/nae/index.
html Dube, Jonathan. (1999, May18) “Plenty of Meat To Go Around”. {October 26, 1999} Available:http://abcnews. go. com/sections/science/DailyNews/makahs990518.
html Webster,John. (1998, November 3) “Anything for an unworthy cause”. {October29, 1999} Available: http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=11039;ID=s477881;cat=
