ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

Legacy

ETS!,

Geov states (BackTalk, Vol. 3 No. 8 10/28/98) that the "bottom line" on the gray whale issue is that the Makah have "treaty rights that must be respected." If I was a judge or government functionary I believe I might accept that. Similarly when Geov goes on to say that the whale-kill treaty provision is the business of the Makah and the Makah alone.

However, this ignores much more fundamental "bottom lines": that just because something is legal does not make it right; that justice (and animal rights, and anarchists--and anti-authoritarians??) know no national boundaries. If I see injustice I reserve the right as a moral being to challenge it, be it in my backyard or in my neighbor's "sovereign" nation.

--Andy Chain, Seattle

G.P. replies: Andy's right, of course. About his larger point regarding injustice. Not, unfortunately, about the rest of it--and geez, I just hate it when people go to the trouble to quote me wrong. Not the bottom line "on the gray whale issue," Andy: the bottom line on the existence of the Makah nation, which is what the Sea Shepherds--and you, with your gratuitous hate quotes around the word "sovereign"--additionally call into question. That applies to whaling, or casinos, or reservation zoning, or any other tribal issue white folks get lathered up about. The question is whether the treaties that give the Makah status as a sovereign nation--not just the "whale-kill treaty provision"--are to be abolished. That's what Slade Gorton wants. It's what Jack Metcalf wants. It's what Paul Watson says he wants. Is that what you want, Andy? Is that why you're willing to dismiss a two-century legacy of genocide and stolen land as an annoying, ambiguous legal technicality?

ETS! is read by a lot of environmentalists and animal rights activists; we're all part of a larger community working for a better planet. Sometimes, unfortunately, our friends fuck up; and sometimes our friends do us no favors. The Sea Shepherds' actions have (unfortunately) united the Makah in contempt, and statewide have probably set back Native-enviro relations by a generation--relations already made tense by gratuitous white enviro ripoffs of faux-native spirituality. We don't like criticizing allies; however, Paul and Lisa have been at this a lot of years. It must be concluded that they know exactly what they're doing. And anyone who acts and speaks to such racist effect so consistently must be confronted--no matter how many fucking cetaceans they've saved. The last few weeks have been a giant, tragic, unnecessary step backwards for all of us. Too bad the folks who did the most damage will be safely off to the next vanguard photo op, while we're left to pick up their mess.

On The Can

Dear Editors, ETS!,

I would be willing to bet that every self-described "anarchist" would bust their ass to at least spend five minutes filling out an absentee ballot, if a candidate who showed a strong chance of winning pledged to have all good law abiding anarchists shot on sight, and that the house to house raids would begin on November 4th. So I feel compelled to respond to Matt Asher's letter in regards to not voting.

One of the advantages of going through the trouble of running for an office is that you can get access to the mainstream of the public via the voters' pamphlet. It's too bad that most socialists are not only bad political writers, but also miss the point that winning the election isn't really the point anyhow. Even Eugene Debs admitted that if he could capture the presidency, there would be no point in running. But showing up to a primary election insures that almost anyone can have radical ideas disseminated to that nice fellow with the NRA sticker on the pickup truck.

Another thing that ought to be considered is that there is a small element of direct democracy in Seattle and Washington, and that is the ballot initiative. Since right-wingers are citizens like everyone else (albeit better funded), they are free to file for initiatives to effectively ban abortion. I don't think that it is a wise thing to let these things slip by based on ideological purity. Then imagine a man justifying to a woman that he just couldn't bring himself to vote against it, because, well, it legitimizes the rat system. If feminism was alive, she'd deck 'em one.

People vote because it is at least one place to express collective ideas, even if it is for five minutes, and even if it is collectively deciding what label fascism will have. The thing that anti-statists of all colors miss is that you have to have an alternate method for collective organization and expression set up, before people will turn their attention away from voting in government elections. It is government and capital that feeds (most) of us, and until something else can be demonstrated to be reasonable to the majority of people, folks are still going to show up and vote, and hold the government as "legitimate." This goes beyond distributing indecipherable tracts on poetic terrorism and enduring endless hours of "consensus" training.

I still find myself at odds with those who insist that I can turn dog shit into gold via the ballot box. The thing that will keep government out of our face is organizing and taking control of ourselves. If the defensive act of voting will put off the neo-$talinist era for a few more years, all the more time to do the right thing. And voting is at least good practice in other organization--cooperatives, unions, and other rank and file institutions. And as an added bonus, an absentee ballot can be filled out while on the toilet. Finally, the ballot box can be moved to where it belongs!

John Persak, Seattle

Judge and Jury

Dear ETS!,

I made friends with a Makah elder ten years ago and have had an interest in Neah Bay and the tribe since then. I also had a friend that served on the Sea Shepherd and had a very bad experience and had to leave early. I recognize the Makah's treaty right to whale. Having said all this does not change the fact that the renewed whaling activity is hurting the tribe, the environmental movement, and could result in the death and injury of many Gray Whales, some of which have, for good or bad, become aculturated to humans and their boats through "eco-tourism."

Some of those involved in the whaling group have used strong-arm tactics to silence members of their own community. I also suspect that they are working in concert with commercial whaling interests and are concerned more with carving out their own personal empires than tribal heritage. Under the present agreement, they can take five whales, but they can also wound others. Grays were known among whalers as one of the most dangerous species, often attacking the whalers when one of their pod was attacked. Does ETS! support whaling?

John M. Shaul

M.T. replies: No, ETS! doesn't support whaling. But, unlike you, we pay more than just lip service to the Makah's treaty rights. We also recognize that the U.S. government has a history of "recognizing" treaties, then going right ahead and breaking or ignoring them anyway. Sound familiar? Why attempt to emulate the U.S. government?

A Matter of Survival

Greetings,

I would like to answer some of the responses I have gotten on my statement on Paul Watson and Sea Shephard. First, Watson and his camp followers raise the issue that there could be economic reasons behind the whale hunt. Some of the people who sent me messages said that those possible economic reasons showed that the Makah were just as greedy as the mass industrialized greedy monster.

Personally I find these statements a very good example of how deep the racism is in parts of the so-called environmental movement. Have any of these people who say these things ever been out to Makah land? Do they have any idea of how poor most Makah people are? I believe the unemployment rate is somewhere around 70%. How could anyone in their right mind compare the Makahs trying to bring some money in, to the greedy industrialized dominate society?

But we here in the state of Washington are very use to this perverted way of thinking. Whenever First Nations here try to help their people, there's a bunch of white people always telling them how bad they are for doing that. Don't even try to tell me that you are not a part of the dominate white supremacist society and then turn around and attack the Makahs in the same way that the white supremacists do! And don't try to tell me that I don't know what I am talking about for I have been in the middle of the struggle against the racist anti-tribal people in this state and many of those people are directly backing Watson.

I am told that, although the racist anti-tribal people like Metcalf may be "bad" on some issues, they are willing to work with Watson, and that's ok. Well let me tell you something, that is not only a slap in the face of all indigenous people, but also to all other people of color, to anyone who is a real environmentalist (just look at how he voted on environmental issues) and anyone who believes in human rights.

Where do you people draw the line? Would you work with David Duke? Hitler? The manner in which Watson and his supporters are handling the issue of the Makahs shows everyone else what they really stand for. I don't give a damn if Watson was at Wounded Knee, he did not learn anything there. I have yet to find even one Wounded Knee vet that supports Watson's stance.

Arthur J. Miller, Tacoma, WA