From: Mike Two Horses
Dear Marguerite,
You know, this is what I expect from Australians, which is a shame...I guess if you had a better aboriginal rights record down under, I'd probably be a little less suspicious.
I'm interested in what you wrote below, though...I've watched videos of both incidents (Monday with the Tiger, and Thursday with the Jetski) taken from every angle. In both cases the protestors were intentionally breaking the law, and the US Coast Guard acted with due restraint in difficult situations. Monday's video footage clearly shows Bill Moss ignoring the Coast Guard's orders to retreat from the exclusion zone, and running up to full power again in what appears from any angle to be an attempt to run down the canoe (a canoe full of human beings - albeit Indians, but still human beings). The Coast Guard attempted to shoulder him off twice with the smaller boat, and finally had to shoulder him off with the cutter. Whose fault is that? Would you feel better if he'd succeeded, maybe killed all eight people in the canoe? Is that what you want? Dead aboriginals?
Thursday with Erin Abbott was no different; Abbott attempted on her first pass to swamp the canoe, trying to put those eight men in the 40º F water. Hypothermia happens fast in those waters, in 3 - 5 minutes. The Coast Guard caught her coming back around for a second pass; she made the decision not to back off. It's interesting what she said in her interview, that she never expected to be run over by a boat. Is this Fantasy Island? Did the protestors not take the Coast Guard seriously when they were informed prior to the issuance of the first permit that the Coast Guard would be enforcing the exclusion zone with arrests and siezures of watercraft? How did these
people think this would happen if they did not stop when ordered? What do the police in your country do when they tell a someone breaking the law to stop and the lawbreaker does not stop? Do they ask more nicely? Say, "Pretty please, with a cherry on top"? Nope.
It's unfortunate that she was hurt, but who is to blame? She violated the law. If she disagrees with the law, then she has the same right as everyone else in this country to try to get the law changed. But she didn't. She took matters into her own hands, and that does not work in a society built on the rule of law.
These people are not victims. They're lawbreakers. They'll pay the penalty for their decisions.
Sincerely,
Mike Two Horses
Coalition to End Racial Targeting of American Indian Nations (CERTAIN)
From: Marguerite Wegner
Dear Mike,
I was surprised to receive your email and a little saddened by the tone of your email also.
I am an animal rights activist and my concern is for the lives of animals and for fellow activists who become endangered trying to save animal's lives.
Your email starts of by mentioning Australia's poor record regarding Aboriginals and you are correct in that Australian governments of the past have a lot to answer for. However, there are many people trying to help the Aboriginals here and it would also be great to see some of the Aboriginals try harder to help themselves. (Italics - mth)
The animals do not have a voice. They have to rely on others to speak for them. Australian aboriginal's can be cruel to animals just as white Australians can be cruel to animals. (again, italics - mth - I have to wonder what this has to do with anything except to underscore Marguerite's point that aborinals are not perfect...not that they ever claimed to be) I don't rate cruelty according to race but to the deeds done to the animals. I am opposed to the harpooning of whales and am a vegetarian - I eat no dead animals.
This is where my views come from - a concern for the animals.
If I was involved in protesting about the destruction of old growth forests, I would not expect to be run over by a bulldozer (even if I had no right to be in the forest) and if I fell in the water I would not expect the boat to run me over (arrest me yes but don't run a boat over me).
Please don't turn an animal issue into a race issue. You may feel that someone has a right to be cruel because of their race but I disagree. We are all on this planet together and we should all be learning together about how to exist without killing animals (these are my beliefs which are as important to me as yours are to you).
Kind regards,
Marguerite
Dear Marguerite,
I don't have to turn the animal rights issue into a race issue; you just did it for me in your message (above). What would you like to see the aboriginal Australians do to "try harder to help themselves"? What would you like to see them become? Do you have any idea what they want to "be" culturally speaking? Or do you just have a vision of everyone accomodating themselves to the culture and structure of the colonialist Australia?
If you believe that it is okay for you and for the rest of the colonial European-Australian community to demand that Aboriginals live up to (or down to) your ideas of culture and social order, then you are badly in need of some re-education. You have sources, even in Australia, that can help you to understand how important it is to decolonize, for aboriginal peoples to be self-determing.
Your idea below that animals have to rely on others (meaning human beings) to speak for them is interesting but without real foundation. How do you know this? How do you know that your ideas, your BELIEFS are right, and those of the Makah are wrong? Can you prove any of them? Of course not; they're beliefs, not facts. The Makah and other aboriginal peoples have sets of beliefs as well, and what you're doing by your 'activism' is telling them that their beliefs are subordinate to your beliefs, that theirs are "wrong" and yours are "right." How arrogant...and how ridiculous. Explain to me how we get along without killing animals. Really. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're a complete vegan, don't wear leather, etc. Okay - so we convert the whole world to farming vegetables only, and cotton, and the other crops necessary to sustain such a lifestyle (and it IS a lifestyle, a choice). Where will the animals that are not being killed now live? Do some research and find out how large a population can be sustained on this planet if nobody eats meat (well, except the animals, of course, who aren't going to stop eating other animals...); it's not a very large number, far smaller than the population at this point. So, what will we do with those extra humans? Who will get to decide who gets to eat and who does not? Who will you have starve to death so that you can remake the world as you think it ought to be? I'm not trying to make you feel bad, these are real questions that have to have answers before we all adopt a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle.
It's one thing to wish for, even advocate for, a simpler, less impacting lifestyle. It's another to demand that everyone want the same thing, and then to have completely unrealistic expectations that everyone could have the same thing.
Hey, if the Makah were out to rape the oceans, out to go industrial whaling (using fleets of factory ships), I'd be protesting them as well. But they're not, are they? The quota deal made between the Russians (Siberians, really) and the United States actually reduced the total harvest by 22 whales. The Makah will very likely not take anywhere near their quota of 20, primarily because they have a 2,000 year tradition of only taking what they need, a tradition that was handed down to them along with the rest of their whaling traditions.
Lastly, your bulldozer analogy doesn't fly (no pun intended). There is a vast difference between putting yourself between a bulldozer and a tree and having a reasonable expectation that you will not be run over, and attacking an unpowered canoe with a powered watercraft when you know that you are doing so in violation of the law and in violation of the safety of those in the canoe. Does Erin Abbott's belief system override the rights to personal safety of those in the canoe? Do they have a lesser expectation of respect for their beliefs? If so, why? Because they are Indians? Because they have a divergent belief system from yours? What this comes down to is this: do Erin Abbott, or Bill Moss, or any of the other activists/protestors, have a right under any belief system to take the lives of the whaling crew, or to put their lives in danger? No. The Coast Guard has a single mission on the water; to prevent either of these groups from hurting the other. No Makah on the water has attempted to harm a protestor. Two protestors have attempted to harm Makah hunters. Both will bear the responsibility for their own actions. The Coast Guard has had to stop two motorized watercraft from attacking the canoe, inside the exclusion zone, where the operators KNEW that they were in violation of the law, and where in both cases the operators refused to stop their actions and ignored lawful orders to stop. That nobody has been killed yet is a miracle. Jake Conroy of Ocean Defense International (Abbott's 'boyfriend') has flatly stated that he believes a protestor or a Makah will have to die in this standoff. That's insane. Conroy and the rest have had the opportunity to avail themselves of the legal system and the legislative system to change the laws they do not agree with, and they have not taken the opportunity.
One of the protest updates yesterday quoted John F. Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible will make violent revolutions inevitable." Conroy, Abbott, and the rest have not even tried the 'peaceful revolution' alluded to; they began their campaign against the Makah with racism and violent action. They have no expectation under US law of a free hand to perpetrate violence against the Makah.
Think about it.
Sincerely,
Mike Two Horses
