November
2002
Vegetarian
Advocate: The New York Times Says “Kill Some Whales!”
By Jack Vegetarianberger |
|
|
I am worried about Nicholas D. Kristof. Very worried.
I don’t
know Kristof personally, but I am concerned about the condition of
his soul.
For those of you who don’t regularly read the editorial pages
of The New York Times, Nicholas D. Kristof is a columnist
whose “Harvest the Whales” was published on August 20. In the
column, Kristof argues that the international moratorium against commercial
whaling should be amended. It’s time, he writes, “to allow
some [whale] species to be harvested again.”
The chief basis of Kristof’s pro-whaling argument is that since
the International Whaling Commission enacted a moratorium on all commercial
whaling in 1986, some whale populations have rebounded. “The bottom
line is,” Kristof states, “that while most large whales
remain at risk, for some species we can no longer argue that we need
to ‘save the whales.’ They’ve been saved.”
Kristof writes that “[t]he only remaining argument to oppose
commercial whaling of common species like the minke and perhaps the
sperm and gray
is to say that whales are such magnificent creatures that no one should
be allowed to kill them.
“But that is dangerous ground. It is culinary imperialism for
us to tell Norwegians and Japanese that because we like whales, they
must not eat them. We wince as Koreans or Chinese eat dogs, but what
right do we have to forbid them from eating an animal that is not endangered
but simply lovable? So are lambs and deer.
“So, yes, it makes sense to save the whales that are endangered.
Indeed, we should do more to help blue whales, like launching an international
initiative to identify and protect their breeding grounds. But it’s
also time to allow some species to be harvested again.”
What Kristof Doesn’t Tell Us
To bolster his pro-whaling stance, Kristof argues at length that the
populations of certain species, such as the minke, have increased substantially.
He mentions, for instance, “Milton Freeman, a whaling expert at
the University of Alberta, estimates that the number of minke whales
has tripled over 30 years.” Kristof cites Bruce Mate, an Oregon
State University whale specialist, as an authority and states that Mate
“says that most biologists would not worry about commercial whaling
of minkes and perhaps other populous species so long as quotas were
set at a level that would sustain populations.” Furthermore, Kristof
reports that the “International Whaling Commission calculated
years ago that there were more than 900,000 minke whales and 780,000
pilot whales worldwide, and the numbers are higher now.”
But Kristof neglects to mention a recent, widely reported study that
casts considerable doubt on his stance that minke whale populations
have rebounded. As news reports noted last spring, “minke whale
populations may be far smaller than previously thought which, if true,
would seriously hurt Japan’s case for the resumption of commercial
whaling. The number of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere is the
focus of the International Whaling Commission’s scientific committee
meeting in the southern fishing town of Shimonoseki. Research conducted
a decade ago estimated there were 700,000 minke whales in the [Southern]
Hemisphere. But results of a four-year study released last year showed
there may be only one-third that number.”
Nor does Kristof mention that the International Whaling Commission
adopted a resolution at its 2000 annual meeting about its concern that
the current
estimate of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere was “appreciably
lower” than the previous estimate of 760,000 minke whales. Or
that last year the International Whaling Commission again adopted a
resolution expressing its concern that the minke whale population in
the Southern Hemisphere might have endured a precipitous decline over
the past decade.
Kristof’s column is also misleading when he states “It is
culinary imperialism for us to tell Norwegians and Japanese that because
we like whales, they must not eat them. We wince as Koreans or Chinese
eat dogs, but what right do we have to forbid them from eating an animal
that is not endangered but simply lovable?” Many intelligent readers
(and I’m not thinking only of those who read Satya) would interpret
the above two sentences as inferring that Norwegians and Japanese do
not eat endangered whales. Indeed, immediately after that passage, he
writes: “...it makes sense to save the whales that are endangered.”
Strangely, he neglects to tell the reader that last year Japan announced
its plan to kill up to 50 endangered sei whales this year. I suggest
he read an article titled “Japan Says It Will Double Its Annual
Whale Harvest in Pacific,” dated February 28. It was published
in a newspaper called The New York Times.
Speaking the Truth
While reading Kristof’s column I was reminded of a favorite quote
by Henry David Thoreau: “The one great rule of composition is
to speak the truth.”
Starting with the headline, Kristof’s “Harvest the Whales”
uses euphemism, evasive writing, and deceptive language to avoid the
grim reality of what commercial whaling entails. Largely, he does not
speak of whales being killed; rather, his verb of choice is “harvested.” That
is euphemism.
Whaling involves hunting down a large animal and shooting an explosive
harpoon into his or her living body—preferably into the brain.
If the grenade hits its mark, whalers estimate that it takes some five,
ten or twenty minutes for the whale to die. Truth is, nobody really
knows. But the harpoons often “strike” the creature, lodging
into his or her flesh. Injured whales desperately try to swim away while
hunters pursue in chases that can last all day. Once captured, these
enormous mammals are dismembered in a process that is exceptionally
bloody. Basically, for a whale, “harvesting” means a slow,
cruel death; the whale suffers and suffers. I can’t even imagine
what it would be like to be killed by simple metal harpoons. Yet, Kristof’s
column never once considers what is involved in the act of whaling.
His writing is strangely cold and bloodless.
One of his column’s most troubling passages is when he states
that the Japanese and Norwegians “risk becoming pariahs by continuing
to salivate when they see a nice juicy whale.” That’s cute
writing. And nauseatingly evasive. The Norwegians and Japanese do not
risk becoming pariahs because they salivate when they see a nice juicy
whale; they risk becoming pariahs because, unlike the rest of the world,
they continue to defy international opinion by hunting down and slaughtering
whales. The reality is, the Norwegians and the Japanese kill whales
whose populations are threatened or endangered. But Kristof doesn’t
share those facts with his readers.
In fact, nowhere in Kristof’s column does he tell the reader how
many or what types of whales are killed by Norway and Japan. In short,
the Big Picture is missing. All told, Norwegians and Japanese will “harvest”
more than 1,250 whales this year. The hunted species include minke,
endangered sei, and the threatened Bryde’s and sperm whales.
Culinary Imperialism?
Kristof’s column concludes with the argument that Americans are
engaging in “culinary imperialism” when they urge Norwegians
and Japanese to not eat whales. I wonder if Kristof would advance a
similar position if the subject of his column wasn’t nonhuman
animals. Indeed, if I push his “culinary imperialism” arguments
to its logical conclusion, one quickly sees how untenable Kristof’s
position is.
Is it cultural imperialism to oppose human slavery in Africa? What about
child labor in China? Is that also off limits? How about the case of
Amina Lawal, the Nigerian woman who is slated to be stoned to death
for adultery? Is it religious imperialism to oppose the Islamic law
in her home state which has sentenced her to be buried up to her neck,
then pelted with stones that are not large enough to kill her immediately?
Like humans, all species of whales, even the ones Kristof deems “common,”
are living beings. Like us, their time on this planet is painfully short.
And like us, they deserve to enjoy their lives without being harassed
by whalers or hunted to death. What is sad about Kristof’s “Harvest
the Whales” column is that it reveals him to be a man lacking
in compassion, understanding, and sympathy for other living beings.
Contact: Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times, 229 W. 43 Street,
New York, NY 10026; (212) 556-1234; nicholas@nytimes.com.
To see the gruesome handiwork of modern-day whalers, visit www.whaleman.com
for video footage of Japanese harpooners in action.
