Polluting the English Language to Justify Slaughter ~ Capt. Paul Watson

[Carolyn Bailey]

Commentary by Paul Watson  

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

 

 

For years I have been annoyed at some of the terminology used in conservation and environmental circles.

 

I think we should consciously try to think about changing the words we use. We need to put an end to the utilitarian, consumeristic jargon that is employed to justify ecological exploitation and the infliction of cruelty on nonhuman species.

 

Let’s start with the Canadian seal hunt. This is not really a hunt when you think about it. No one is tracking, stalking, or pursuing seals. The cowardly sealers merely walk through a nursery of defenseless seal pups and whack and bash them on the head. The little fellas can’t escape, they can’t swim, and they can’t defend themselves. Let’s call it what it is – a slaughter or a massacre. I like to call it the Canadian National Annual Obscenity. And the baby killers swinging the clubs are not hunters. They are cowardly thugs.

 

And you don’t harvest seals or fish or any other animal. That word has to go. You harvest corn, oranges, or apples but not seals or fish. I notice farmers don’t even use the term for cows or pigs. They slaughter cows and pigs, they don’t harvest them. So, why the use of this word?  It’s just another attempt to remove the ugliness of their actions from the language and to justify our crimes with denial.

 

The Canadian government has even tried to label baby seals as adults by defining an adult as any seal over three weeks of age.  It seems to me that any seal that can’t swim, can’t escape, and is helpless on an ice floe at three weeks of age qualifies as a baby seal.

 

And this word sustainable. This gem was dreamed up by that whale-killing former Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Bruntland. She was all for conservation so long as it was outside the borders of Norway and did not involve Norwegian fishing vessels.

 

This word sustainable popped up around the time of the U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development in 1992.

 

What does it mean? After you strip away the spin and the green-washing it simply means: business as usual.

 

For example, there is a great deal of talk about the value of “sustainable fisheries.” I can’t think of many fisheries that are truly “sustainable.”

Practically every commercial fishery in the world is in a state of commercial collapse, yet you can still find “sustainably-fished” cod or salmon, (at least it says so on the label).

 

In a world of almost seven billion people, words like sustainable mean very little. Just think, if every person on earth ate one fish per week that would be nearly seven billion fish per week or 364 billion fish a year. The oceans can not endure this so what is happening is that fish are becoming more

expensive meaning only wealthy nations can afford it which means sending giant factory ships from Europe and Japan to the coasts of Africa and India to plunder fish that Africans and Indians need for survival. There are over one million fishing vessels operating every day on the world’s oceans taking tens of millions of tons each day. How does the word sustainable even remotely fit into the reality of worldwide fishing?

 

The ecological reality is that all fishing should be prohibited immediately if we are to protect oceanic eco-systems. There are simply not enough fish in all the world’s oceans to meet the demand of expanding human populations. When demand far outweighs supply, the word sustainable is meaningless.

 

Another word used these days is “stocks.” It makes it sound like the ocean is our private warehouse. We use terms in fisheries like “managing the stocks,” or the “stocks have been reduced,” or the “stocks are healthy.” It makes it sound like its all neat and handy, and already on the grocery shelf. The correct term is populations.

 

We don’t say there is an “unhealthy stock of humans messing up the environment.” Nor do we say that the “stock of humans need to be managed,” although Adolf Hitler attempted to do just that.  I wonder if the Nazi’s referred to the Jews as stocks needing culling?

 

When you put the three above-mentioned words together, you get the “sustainable harvesting of stocks” of fish. Talk about separating ourselves from nature.

 

Sometimes the word fish is replaced by the word “product”

 

“Yes sir, we caught a million cans of product this season, all canned up and ready to go to market, sustainably, and humanely harvested, of course.”

 

Which bring us to the term “humane,” as in “humane killing.”

 

This term suggests that killing is acceptable as long as it is humane. It actually means the killing of animals is acceptable by humans so long as we can appease our guilt by making it sound okay by “humanizing” the action. When did killing become humane?

 

But if human behaviour is observably cruel then the word humane should actually mean cruel and not kind. Humans wipe out 70 million sharks a year, slicing off their fins and tossing them back into the sea. This seems to be the normal human approach to exploitation and thus I suppose it is accurate to say that the fishermen humanely kill the sharks if we change the definition from being kind to being unkind.

 

But we humans really believe we are kind. We just justify our cruelty and declare ourselves humane. For example, if men with clubs go walking through the streets kicking and clubbing kittens the media and the public would be outraged. In fact we are angered beyond measure and rightfully so when the Chinese authorities conduct mass seizures and slaughter of dogs yet many of these same people seem to think it is perfectly alright to kick, club and skin baby seals alive.

 

Homo Hypocriticus or the Hypocritical primate is a word that would best describe us. We call ourselves Homo sapien  meaning aware or intelligent but just simply calling ourselves this does not make it so.

 

Thus we have the absurd description of the Canadian seal hunt or the

Japanese dolphin slaughter as “humane sustainable harvesting of stocks of seals/dolphins.”

 

 By simply using the word “humane,” we can accept that being bludgeoned in the head with a spiked club is kind of okay because it is described as humane.

 

Imagine the outrage if animal shelters put down dogs with a club instead of lethal injection. Of course, we avoid the word “kill” in the shelters by saying we put the poor animals to “sleep.” It sounds much nicer.

 

We always hear about how Faeroese whale killers “humanely saw through the neck of a pilot whale to sever the spinal cord.” It takes a few minutes but the Danish government has said that the slaughter of pilot whales is a humane, sustainable, harvest of wild pilot whale stocks.

 

And to add insult to injury we name some whales “right whales” because

whalers viewed them as the right whales to kill because they were slow and did not sink after they were killed. I would prefer to see the Patagonia right whale called simply the Patagonia whale.

 

And the poor little Minke whale has been insulted with the moniker of a

notorious Norwegian whaler, a sadistic character by the name of Captain Meinke who liked to kill whales. I would prefer to have the whale named after someone who likes whales or defends whales instead of some serial murderer of whales. We call this whale the Piked whale.

 

And why is it that you can’t describe an animal killer as a murderer?

 

Webster’s dictionary defines murder as the killing of another human being, but it also says that to kill or slaughter inhumanely or barbarously is also murder.

 

Homicide is the correct term for the killing of a human being. Cetacide is the killing of a whale and simicide is the murder of a chimpanzee.

 

I think that murder is an acceptable term for describing the barbarous slaughter of a seal or the inhumane killing of a dolphin, a whale or an elephant.

 

We just like to pretty things up to deny our responsibility in the wilful taking of life.

 

I also like how people who eat meat describe themselves as meat-eaters. Some even say they are carnivores. A real carnivore would have a laugh over this self-aggrandizing description. Human beings are not meat-eaters. Carnivores hunt down, pounce upon, and rip the flesh from the living body of their prey. Now, I admit there are a few strange, perverse people who eat live monkey brains and live squirming eels but the average human does not eat living flesh. In fact, the average non-vegetarian human is a carrion eater. They eat dead flesh. The correct term is necrovore.

 

Sometimes the flesh they eat has been dead for weeks or even years. It looks all red and fresh thanks to chemicals, bleach, and dyes.

 

Humans are closer to vultures, hyenas, and jackals than to the noble lions, tigers, and wolves they try to emulate.

 

And then there is the categorizing of people into different camps in an attempt at dehumanization. Environmentalists are often called eco-terrorists although no environmentalist has ever terrorized or hurt anyone. Yet corporations like Union Carbine, BP,Shell, and Exxon can kill people and cause incredible environmental damage without the media referring to them as eco-terrorists. Usually, it is the employees of these corporations that call the nature defenders eco-terrorists. It figures.

 

We don’t have a logging industry anymore, they call it silviculture. It goes along with the Healthy Forest Initiative where a healthy forest is a forest that is harvested, humanely, and sustainably, of course. The loggers are now “forest nurturers” who farm and harvest the forests for the benefit of future generations.

 

And finally the word conservative. What happened with this word? Conservative means to conserve, to maintain the status quo. When did Conservative come to mean undermining the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Air Act? When did conservative mean being anti-conservationist?

 

As a conservationist, I’ve always viewed myself as a conservative but now I find that the right-wing, radical, wacko anti-conservationists who destroy forests, overfish the oceans, and pollute our rivers are now calling themselves conservative and accusing me of being a radical for working to conserve nature and endangered species.

 

I think it is clear that we have a serious language pollution problem.

 

 

Reproduced with permission from Paul's Facebook page.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/paul-watson/polluting-the-english-lan...

 

 

[Tim Marshall]

Ok. now I'm puzzled back in the opposite direction, when I first saw Paul speak I thought he was pro animal rights as he painted the pictures that adorn his argument by describing moving encounters with individual whales when he was with Greenpeace , then he effectively said on his ARZone chat that he is motivated by conservation, i.e. keeping numbers of species up and protecting ecosystems/the environment as a whole BUT in his piece above he mentions " consumeristic jargon that is employed to justify ecological exploitation and the infliction of cruelty on nonhuman species" 

Having it both ways perhaps? I think he is fond of whales as a single species , perhaps seals & dolphins equally, its a strange issue , 80% of my friends who I consider part of the Animal Rights movement are big fans of SeaShep because they believe there is an AR component.

Highly confused issue, I don't wish to conflate environmentalism with abolitionist AR