Whether Whaling Should Be Allowed In Countries Like Japan
The question of whether whaling should be allowed in countries like Japan and Norway is a complex mix of cultural, economic, and political facets. To me, however, it is not a difficult question to answer. Simply put, while I would not disagree with the hunting of whales by the two countries if they did so sustainably and humanely, I think the practice has gone beyond a cultural activity, and therefore should not be considered for exemption under cultural reasons.
A cultural activity is an activity that contributes to, and celebrates the traditions within a particular society. It is a spiritual activity, which deepens the connections between the people of the culture. These could be cultural festivals, learning cultural dances, making foods that are unique to the people, or even the enactment of simple social norms, such as welcoming the new couple next door to the neighbourhood. A cultural activity is not necessarily a positive thing, however, as some harmful activities, such as female genital mutilation, are considered cultural as well. In Japan, whales were traditionally hunted for the great many resources they could provide to the people. The early whaling villages that made a living off these animals built shrines to them (Facts About Japan, c2016), indicating a deep respect and spiritual connection …show more content…
to the whales they hunted. The Shinto and Buddhist religious influences on the Japanese culture also foster this respect, and the Japanese whalers “made a virtue out of utilising every part of the whale” (Marohasy, 2008, p 39.). Marohasy (2008) also describes a whale cemetery in Nagato City, where there is a yearly prayer service for the souls of the whales.
The proponents of Japanese whaling argue these points as cultural reasons for hunting whales. I believe, however, that the improvements in whaling technology, and the commercialisation of whale-hunting in the lates 19th century resulted in the activity becoming more of a commercial one, rather than something borne of culture, tradition, or even to satisfy the basic need of food. Facts About Japan (c2016) states that the technological improvements were opposed by the local fishermen, because “they believed it promoted indiscriminate killing of whales” (Facts About Japan, c2016), while an article by Sarah Zhang suggests that modern Japanese people rarely eat whale meat at all.
Norwegians, on the other hand, have less of a cultural argument for their whaling practices altogether. A history of whaling is not synonymous with whaling being part of a culture or tradition, and an article on the WDC website (n.d.) suggests that modern whaling in Norway is a relatively recent commercial development.
The whaling ban does, in my opinion, violate the sovereignty of these two nations. The “one-size-fits-all” nature of the ban fails to take into consideration how it it could negatively impact upon smaller fishing villages who conduct whaling activities as part of their livelihoods in the modern economy. The government, as the entity responsible for the well-being of its people, therefore should not be forced to adhere to such an agreement if it deems that it may be harmful to its citizens, no matter what the world opinion might be.
There would be less conflict between world opinion and the claims of these countries if the ban was to address the actual issues at hand.
Instead of applying a blanket ban on whaling - a prohibitive measure, which can be seen as a threat and met with resistance - it should implement a ban on unsustainable and inhumane whaling. This way, it satisfies the need perceived by many to protect whale species, and does not threaten the sovereignty or culture of the countries that participate in whale hunting. Both Japan and Norway only want to hunt non-endangered species (The Levin Institute, n.d.), so I imagine they would be quite willing to cooperate with such a
ban.
If all international agreements were clearer and more targeted, perhaps there would be less need for cultural exemptions. However, since this is not the case, I am of a mind with Jeremy Rifkin to establish a World Cultural Organisation (The Levin Institute, n.d.) to settle these claims. In my mind, such an organisation would be government agnostic - like a non-governmental organisation. It would be comprised of representatives of all the different cultures in the world, and they would be tasked with validating cultural exemption claims, and advocating for cultural exemption in instances where it might be lacking. These individuals would have no political power in their respective countries, and should have the deepest understanding of their own culture, as well as the highest respect for the other cultures of the world. The lack of political players in the organisation would hopefully avoid the kind of situation in the United Nations, where many of their attempts to aid humanity are foiled by political games.
Word count: 756 excluding quotes and citations
A cultural activity is an activity that contributes to, and celebrates the traditions within a particular society. It is a spiritual activity, which deepens the connections between the people of the culture. These could be cultural festivals, learning cultural dances, making foods that are unique to the people, or even the enactment of simple social norms, such as welcoming the new couple next door to the neighbourhood. A cultural activity is not necessarily a positive thing, however, as some harmful activities, such as female genital mutilation, are considered cultural as well. In Japan, whales were traditionally hunted for the great many resources they could provide to the people. The early whaling villages that made a living off these animals built shrines to them (Facts About Japan, c2016), indicating a deep respect and spiritual connection …show more content…
to the whales they hunted. The Shinto and Buddhist religious influences on the Japanese culture also foster this respect, and the Japanese whalers “made a virtue out of utilising every part of the whale” (Marohasy, 2008, p 39.). Marohasy (2008) also describes a whale cemetery in Nagato City, where there is a yearly prayer service for the souls of the whales.
The proponents of Japanese whaling argue these points as cultural reasons for hunting whales. I believe, however, that the improvements in whaling technology, and the commercialisation of whale-hunting in the lates 19th century resulted in the activity becoming more of a commercial one, rather than something borne of culture, tradition, or even to satisfy the basic need of food. Facts About Japan (c2016) states that the technological improvements were opposed by the local fishermen, because “they believed it promoted indiscriminate killing of whales” (Facts About Japan, c2016), while an article by Sarah Zhang suggests that modern Japanese people rarely eat whale meat at all.
Norwegians, on the other hand, have less of a cultural argument for their whaling practices altogether. A history of whaling is not synonymous with whaling being part of a culture or tradition, and an article on the WDC website (n.d.) suggests that modern whaling in Norway is a relatively recent commercial development.
The whaling ban does, in my opinion, violate the sovereignty of these two nations. The “one-size-fits-all” nature of the ban fails to take into consideration how it it could negatively impact upon smaller fishing villages who conduct whaling activities as part of their livelihoods in the modern economy. The government, as the entity responsible for the well-being of its people, therefore should not be forced to adhere to such an agreement if it deems that it may be harmful to its citizens, no matter what the world opinion might be.
There would be less conflict between world opinion and the claims of these countries if the ban was to address the actual issues at hand.
Instead of applying a blanket ban on whaling - a prohibitive measure, which can be seen as a threat and met with resistance - it should implement a ban on unsustainable and inhumane whaling. This way, it satisfies the need perceived by many to protect whale species, and does not threaten the sovereignty or culture of the countries that participate in whale hunting. Both Japan and Norway only want to hunt non-endangered species (The Levin Institute, n.d.), so I imagine they would be quite willing to cooperate with such a
ban.
If all international agreements were clearer and more targeted, perhaps there would be less need for cultural exemptions. However, since this is not the case, I am of a mind with Jeremy Rifkin to establish a World Cultural Organisation (The Levin Institute, n.d.) to settle these claims. In my mind, such an organisation would be government agnostic - like a non-governmental organisation. It would be comprised of representatives of all the different cultures in the world, and they would be tasked with validating cultural exemption claims, and advocating for cultural exemption in instances where it might be lacking. These individuals would have no political power in their respective countries, and should have the deepest understanding of their own culture, as well as the highest respect for the other cultures of the world. The lack of political players in the organisation would hopefully avoid the kind of situation in the United Nations, where many of their attempts to aid humanity are foiled by political games.
Word count: 756 excluding quotes and citations