Update on the Cove Situation
By Dyske October 24th, 2011
I received this email below about Sea Shepherd:
Hello,
Please forgive my English. I found your blog yesterday while searching articles regarding the Cove. I totally agree that this is an issue of ethnocentrism rather than protesting for whaling or for killing Dolphins. The issue has gotten an extreme now. Please see this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oVcLemp5jY
This is nothing but hatred. The fact that the Academy has awarded the movie the Cove an Oscar has given them more confidence in what they are doing to people in Taiji. I want to spread this as much as possible and make people realize how wrong they are to the people in Taiji. The people in Taiji do not deserve this. The anti-Whaling, anti-killing Dolphin people need to find another organizations or ways to achieve their goals but not by supporting Sea Shepherd.
Do you think you could in anyway (in your blog or through twitter) to raise a voice about this?
Thank you,
Noriko
Tokyo, Japan
Noriko says:
October 29th, 2011 at 10:41 amThank you for posting my e-mail. John V. Roos, the US Ambassador to Japan is now gathering opinions regarding Anti-Whaling/Taiji issue on Twiiter.
Maurício Kanno says:
December 8th, 2011 at 9:35 pmHello, I´m really a lover of the Japanese culture, including the language and arts. But I´m really totally against any kind of violence to animals. The human being (not just Japanese people) is really cruel in this aspect and I´ll voice this fact anytime.
GJS says:
December 19th, 2011 at 3:43 amI love your site and I use it with my students (I’m a universoty professor in Japan). But I have to point out that I can’t see any evidence of racism in this video. Which part is racist?
Dyske says:
December 19th, 2011 at 8:21 amTrue. This isn’t “racism”. This is ethnocentrism.
Noriko says:
December 19th, 2011 at 11:49 amThis whole whaling and dolphin issue targeting Japan involves some elements of racism, I think. To begin with, the slogan “whales and dolphins are intelligent creatures so should not be killed..even they are not endangered” contains an idea that leads to racism. To prove that, most of the activists against Japan whaling and dolphin hunts are White people. Even though more whales are killed by European nations last year, we do not see Whale War show against those nations. Hundreds of dolphins are killed by fishing net all around the world but there are no campaigns for that. These activists could behave like this in the video because they just look down on them. I do not think they act the same to White fishermen. There is no direct words that indicate “racism” in the video but it shows.
GJS says:
December 19th, 2011 at 7:02 pmHmm…
Right, so, there is nothing in this video that points to racism. I agree.
I am anAmerican who has been living in Japan for ten years. Whenever this whale/dolphin issue comes up in conversation, non-Japanese tend to say things like “I thought Hapanesr culture was very sensitive and thoughtful towards nature and wildlife – why would they kill defenseless a inala like that?” so there is some stereotyping, but it seems to be on the positive side.
It might be that the Europeans know how to keep the whaling quiet – most of the world do not know that Europeans do this more than the Japanese. The Japnese are being publicly defiant – maybe that’s why they are hearing the most complaints and harassment.
I agree – bothering these employees is ineffective and a bit mean, but you can’t assume to know there’s racism here. Have you ever met an animal activist? they are some of the most staunchly NONracist people around.
Don’t cry racism where is there is none – it’s an insult to those actually suffering from it
GJS says:
December 19th, 2011 at 7:04 pmSorry about the misspellings – I meant “defenseless animal”
– smartphones correct things automatically sometimes
Dyske says:
December 19th, 2011 at 10:40 pmThere is a great podcast on Freakonomics entitled The Truth Is Out There…Isn’t It?” which is quite relevant to this topic of whaling or dolphin hunting. There is no point in debating this logically since what is driving both sides to argue isn’t logic, but emotions. They are not looking for logical settlement; they are looking for emotional settlement. If their emotions do not feel settled, they will keep arguing no matter what the logic says.
The Japanese people generally do not put much value on logic as this pointless nature of logical argumentation is inherently understood in their philosophies (like in Zen Buddhism). So, in this video, you are also seeing this difference in Eastern and Western philosophies.
Alix says:
December 28th, 2011 at 3:09 pm“The Japanese people generally do not put much value on logic as this pointless nature of logical argumentation is inherently understood in their philosophies (like in Zen Buddhism). So, in this video, you are also seeing this difference in Eastern and Western philosophies.”
THAT’S RACIST (overly simplistic, too)!
Dyske says:
December 28th, 2011 at 3:23 pmHi Alix,
This is an interesting topic and you think it’s “RACIST” only because you assume logic is superior (to intuition or emotions), like you might assume skinny is superior to fat. These things are cultural. There is an interesting book called “The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently…and Why”. I would recommend it if you are interested in this topic.
There is a relevant quote in this book:
“It is precisely because the Chinese mind is so rational that it refuses to become rationalistic and … to separate form from content.” —Shu-Hsien Liu
GJS says:
December 28th, 2011 at 7:17 pmThe original question was about whether it’s racist to get angry at people who proudly and defiantly kill whales because the whale killers happen to be Japanese. There’s no evidence of racism in the video. No one in this blog thread can show it because it isn’t there. So…again…it’s really shitty to cry “racist” when you’re just mad about the whale killers being picked on. MLK said that people should be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. And the protesters seem to believe that the character of the whale hunters is indifferent and somewhat cruel. They could be wrong about that, but it isn’t racist to think so.
And how about this – I think K-pop sucks. Does that mean I hate Koreans? I think a few of Spike Lee’s movies are mediocre. Does that mean I hate blacks? I am angry that the Japanese government sells tobacco to its own people. Does that mean I hate the Japanese?
NORIKO says:
December 29th, 2011 at 12:53 amI said there is no direct words of racism but never meant there is no racism in the video. Many people who saw this video thought these activists are racist and I agree with them.
Whale War show and the Cove movie has been stimulating anti-Japan sentiment among Western society and these activists are succeesing in evoking hate feeling toward Japanese people rather than helping dolphins.
Dyske said this is ethnocentrism. Yes, the idea “the entire world have to think dolphins and whales should not be hunt (eventhough they are not endangered)” is ethnocentrism but what these activists are doing in this video and the protests against Japanese whaling and dolphin hunting have the essence of racism.
Dyke also said this is emotional issue… but more emotional ones are Western people in this issue. There is no logic to make Japanese people to understand that Whaling and dolphin hunting should be stopped. Those Whales and dolphins that Japanese hunts are not endangered ones, Japan has been fish eating society for thousands of years..The small village fishermen are suddenly being attacked by Western society (in which BILLIONS of animals are killed for food=for human convenience). There is no logic.
GJS says:
December 29th, 2011 at 12:58 amLook, I’m an American who divides his time between Japan and New Tork. I have talked about this issue with many people who oppose the whaling, but it simply isn’t an ethnocentric issue. No one gives a shit that the whalers are Japanese – they care about the whales.
Aussies seem to have some stronger opinions related to Japanese culture and whaling, but I have heard zero racism on this point.
Dyske says:
December 29th, 2011 at 8:13 amGJS,
It’s obvious that you don’t know what “ethnocentrism” is. Ethnocentrism by definition stems from the ignorance of the culture that you criticize. The idea is that, because you do not understand, or that you are not even willing to understand the culture you compare to your own that your own value is assumed to be superior. In other words, you are not even aware that you are making this assumption. “No one gives a shit that the whalers are Japanese”. This is EXACTLY how ethnocentrism works. Look at what’s happening in the video. The protesters are yelling at them in English even though it’s clear that the Japanese people who are being yelled at do not understand what they are saying. They don’t care about Japan or the Japanese culture. They don’t even want to understand them or their values. They just assume that “caring about the whales” is a universal and absolute moral value that everyone in the world should conform to.
I’ve already argued these points and a lot more on this page:
http://alllooksame.com/?p=485
So, I’m tired of arguing about this topic. As I said, this isn’t about logic. Before we even engage in a logical debate, the willingness to understand each other is completely lacking which is clearly summed up in your statement “No one gives a shit that the whalers are Japanese”. This is why I say there is no point in debating about this logically.
Here’s another interesting article called “Why Do Humans Reason?”. The idea is that we didn’t evolve to reason because we are interested in some sort of “truth”, making better decisions, or improving our knowledge, but simply because we are interested in persuading others to our own views. When the lack of willingness to truly understand or know the object of your criticism is as obvious as it is in this whaling debate, this new hypothesis about the evolution of reason seems quite true.
theheron says:
January 1st, 2012 at 12:27 amI’ve been reading the arguments above with interest. My scientific background makes me favor a reductionist approach to complicated questions, so here’s my take on the reaction and counter-reaction to ‘The Cove.’ Firstly, public criticism of the status quo by people who are not ‘experts,’ or ‘senior people,’ is deeply taboo in Japan. All the ‘Learn before you criticize Japan’ arguments fall into this category: they just state that you’re just not qualified to make a value judgement. Secondly, there’s a belief that you can sanctify any practice, and immunize it from criticism, by pulling it under the umbrella of ‘Japanese culture.’ ‘The Cove’ attacks both these patterns of thought head-on, so of course it’s going to cause distress. We’re used to this kind of criticism in the Anglo-Saxon West: look at The Daily Show in the US or read the English magazine ‘Private Eye.’ Both cruelly spotlight the failings of political and business leaders and mercilessly reveal hypocrisy, incompetence and cover-ups, of which there is an inexhaustible supply. When Japanese practices are criticized, people from democratic countries with a free press are truly mystified by the wails of protest from even well-educated Japanese who rush to protect the very people who are denying them any input. As for the “Japanese culture” part, these days vested interests and the right wing mostly decide what is Japanese and what isn’t. However, it will bring Japanese culture into international disrepute if it harbors too many blatantly self-contradictory and antidemocratic elements. Pointing out these contradictions is not ethnocentric or anti-Japanese, in the same way that stating that breaking up the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protests violates freedom of assembly and freedom of speech is not anti-American or ethnocentric: it’s drawing attention to a fact and opening a discussion.
Dyske says:
January 1st, 2012 at 2:27 am“‘The Cove’ attacks both these patterns of thought head-on…”. No it doesn’t. Not at all. Pretty much every single person involved in the film demonstrates little to no knowledge of the Japanese culture. Never mind “experts”; they are not even beginner students because they are not even interested in learning anything about the Japanese culture. GJS drives this point home with his comment above “No one gives a shit that the whalers are Japanese – they care about the whales.” They simply do not see this as a cultural issue. They think culture is irrelevant in this debate; and I think he is right. The vast majority of the critics of Japan’s whaling practices believe that this issue is universal and absolute, and that it does not require them to learn anything about the culture in which whaling takes place.
So, the points you bring up are also irrelevant as these protesters do not even fall into the category of critics and critical practices that you mention. The debate with whaling isn’t HOW cultural it is. The protestors are not debating about the degree of cultural differences. They do not believe it’s cultural. They feel it should NOT be cultural at all. This is why they protest with such self-righteousness. If they were debating how cultural this issue is, your arguments would be relevant, and the question of how much they should know about the Japanese culture would become relevant, but that is not the case here at all.
I agree with you that pointing out internal contradictions is not ethnocentric, but bear in mind that everyone has his or her own logic, as such, we tend to be blind to our own contradictions while we readily notice those of others. Since there is no way to prove the validity of logic itself (independently of itself), nobody could ever have the last word on anything. Yet the Western thinkers perpetually argue as if it’s possible (with the exception of philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Richard Rorty), while the East assumes and even embraces contradictions as part of truth. This too is still cultural.
theheron says:
January 1st, 2012 at 4:03 amSorry, I should have said ‘collides with’ rather than ‘attacks.’ Anyway, my point, which you don’t really answer, is about how exceptionally badly the Japanese deal with dissent or criticism (the dolphin issue is just a typical example) and how it gives Japan a bad name internationally. I lived in Japan a good many years and noticed how careful everybody is not to step on the toes of people around them. Things are carefully negotiated. I’m also aware that this courtesy is not extended to people outside the Japanese bubble but who are equally and increasingly their neighbours. Their concerns are waved away. People notice this and conclude, not surprisingly, that they are being treated as inferior or irrelevant. This initially unconscious ethnocentrism on the part of the Japanese (unconscious because it’s reinforced every day in the media and by ‘opinion formers’) instantly mutates into a full-blown victim complex when non-Japanese ignore the warning signs and challenge it directly. As for logic, the Japanese are perfectly at ease with it: Japan has produced many world-beating scientists, software writers, mathematicians, go players and engineers. Planes stay in the air and bridges reach across rivers. This wouldn’t happen if everybody had their own variety of logic. If you can resist attacking the tone of the criticism, the motive for making it, and the ignorance of Japan of its proposer, would you agree with my assertion that the Japanese deal with criticism from abroad in a way that seriously undermines their international standing?
Dyske says:
January 1st, 2012 at 8:30 amI feel that I addressed your question in my previous comment. I’m not sure if you understood my point about “logic”. Just because the East has a fundamental distrust for logic, or “reason”, it does not mean that they don’t know how to use it. The point is to know what can be debated in logic and what cannot be. The East has always accepted the limits of logic where it’s appropriate and where it’s not. The West, with the exception of a few, is still insisting that everything can be debated with logic.
So, yes, science, engineering, mathematics, etc., are areas where Eastern thinkers would agree that it is appropriate to use logic. This is why there are many great engineers, scientists, and mathematicians as you noted.
The point that Shu-Hsien Liu is trying to make in the quote above is precisely this. If you are to be extremely rational or even reasonable, you must accept the limits of rationality and reason. It is only when you have the insight to see what can be or cannot be debated with logic that you can actually use logic properly and well.
“would you agree with my assertion that the Japanese deal with criticism from abroad in a way that seriously undermines their international standing?”
What you would consider a proper way of dealing with international criticism is to debate back with logic, to believe that everything can be debated logically, to assume that scientific methods can be extended into matters of personal values. In the East, this would be considered naive, and you are right, they would simply ignore you, just as they used to ignore and dismiss my tendency to argue everything to the ground when I lived there. If you were to believe that reason is not the right method for resolving certain conflicts, why would you bother responding to reason with reason? This is a cultural difference also. You too are assuming that YOUR way, the Western way of conflict resolution is superior (like suing everyone for everything to determine the “truth” of who was right and wrong), and therefore Japan is undermining its own international standing for not responding in a more Western way.
“Dolphins should not be killed” is what Richard Rorty would call “Final Vocabulary”. The protesters only pretend the issue to be debatable but when push comes to shove, and someone is willing to debate it to the ground, they realize that they are not interested in debating that point. They believe it is a sacred cow. It’s a moral absolute. It’s not up for debate with logic. And, ironically, they don’t even realize that they hold it as a moral absolute.
AG says:
January 1st, 2012 at 10:35 pmI think I have to back up the “this is not racist or ethnocentric at all” side;
The anti-whaling people are by simply ignorant of any other point of view.
And being ignorant and hatefull of everybody is, even thou it is a very bad thing, the nearest thing to total equality for all races, cultures and whatnot you could ever achieve. Because as soon as you learn something about one culture, you are actively discriminating (by not learning about them) all the others.
Ps.: I think the main problem in the whaling debate is the nature of Japans whaling program. The fact that it is justified under the cloak of “science” (where reason is the top priority), while at the same time playing the “its a cultural thing” card, is not acceptable. If it was openly a cultural thing (like in the US, Canada, Norway, and others) it would probably enrage these people a lot less.
Dyske says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:48 amWell, AG, although what you are saying is utterly ridiculous, at least you demonstrate and prove very well the problem Japan faces and the severity of ethnocentrism in this world.
In essence, you are saying being ignorant of other people’s point of view promotes equality. So, say, your neighbor next door does something that annoys you. You are saying it’s fine to criticize and attack them, invade their privacy and space, try to humiliate them publicly, etc., while you make no effort in learning or understanding why they are doing what they are doing.
This attitude would extend to any human interaction, not just between two cultures. Any time you have a conflict with anyone, your attitude would be to stay ignorant of the point of view of the other person, because as soon as you learn anything about that person, you will be “actively discriminating all the others”. You are indeed actively promoting and encouraging hate and bigotry by doing so.
When you make no effort to understand other people’s point of view, you do not achieve “equality”, you achieve the exact opposite because you understand only your own point of view. You become sympathetic only to those who happen to share similar values and point of views.
Not knowing other people’s point of view does not automatically lead to “actively discriminating”. You actively discriminate when you INTERACT with them with the expectation that they should conform to your own point of view.
Yes, discrimination is unavoidable. We all passively discriminate all the time. However, the way to minimize the negative effect of passive discrimination isn’t to encourage or rationalize ignorance. It is to be open to listening and learning. It is not the amount of knowledge you have for each person or a culture that determines “equality” but the significance you place on each. Naturally, we will know more about ourselves and people close to us, but this does not automatically lead to bigotry or discrimination; it is when you assume that your own values and point of view are superior to others. When we argue for our own rights, values, and point of views, as a social creatures that we are, we become socially responsible to do our best to understand the point of view of others. Otherwise, the person who is suing should always automatically win in our legal system without ever listening to the point of view of the defendant.
Your argument about “the cloak of science” is also one sided. The reason many Japanese people are angry is because the protestors have in the past used the the cloak of “ecology” (among other cloaks). When they listened to their ecological concerns and started hunting species that are not engendered, they shifted their argument, revealing that ecology was in fact just a cloak, not their real motive for their criticism. The protestors are basically throwing every imaginable argument to stop the Japanese from whaling. It’s not about “reason”; they do not care what it takes. This is why the Japanese too started countering their own method by using “science” as their own cloak.
AG says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:56 amDear Dyske,
For heavens sake, I never said it was a good thing to be ignorant. And I’m strongly against attacking, invading privacy and trying to humiliate someone publicly.
In my opinion it is always good (and in most arguments the most important thing) to understand every participating party, their motives and motivations. So your argument is 100% true and I support this point of view in any possible way.
My first argument was intended to contain a grain of sarcasm. (which you somehow missed totally, because you got way to emotional and culturally hurt, I guess)
But still I am convinced that these anti-whaling protesters are neither racist nor ethnocentric, they are simply ignorant twits. Even thou I am against whaling (on the basis of the quite cruel hunting methods normally employed, the sometimes doubtful sustainability and most important the incredible intelligence these mammals possess) and I’m very doubtful of the scientific, and not commercial, nature of the Japanese whaling program, I can not support these people and their agressive methods.
My argument about the cloaks was, unfortunately, also interpreted the wrong way by you. By saying that Japan is using the “cloak of science”, I was in no way intending to argue that the protesters in this case where “better” or anything. They are very annoying idiots in fact. And I’m always open to question their methods.
But, and that is important, I think that a Japan (or any other country for that matter) should not counter “these methods” by adopting them. Using cloaks equals to discrediting yourself, by use of really “bad discussion manners” (sorry I am lacking the right english words here). I think that the moral standards of a country should be higher, than those of the individuals living in it.
Ps: Please read and think about it, before getting angry.
Dyske says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:38 pmFirstly, communication takes two to tango. If I misunderstood you, why not try doubting YOUR part in the tango also instead of blaming the misunderstanding entirely on the other person? Ironically, that is also an expression of ethnocentrism. You are assuming that what YOU do, and how YOU express things is always superior, and that if there is any problem, it must be the other person’s fault.
Projecting emotion to writing says more about the reader than it says about the writer. Depending on the tone you use to read a piece of writing in your head, it could be angry, cool, casual, hurt, etc.. A good actor could associate any of those emotions to any piece of writing. It’s perfectly possible to read your writing as you being really angry, emotional, and defensive, but I’m not going to assume that, nor complain about it to you because it’s only speculation. So I suggest that you stick to what can be debated with reason, and not interpret other people’s emotions conveniently for yourself.
It appears that many people do not understand what “ethnocentrism” is. From the way you (and others above) are using, it appears that you think ethnocentrism is simply a prejudice against specific cultures, like racism is a prejudice against specific races. This is not the case.
“Racism”, as the word is commonly used, is a conscious act. You consciously choose to hate specific races. Ethnocentrism is an unconscious mechanism. As an example, my dictionary says “evaluating other peoples and cultures according to the standards of one’s own culture.” This problem stems from the assumption that your own “standards” are universal because you do not know or realize that other people have different standards. In other words, being “ignorant twits” is exactly what causes ethnocentrism, but you are using it as a piece of evidence that they are not ethnocentric. That contradicts the very definition of ethnocentrism.
AG says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:13 pmDear Dyske,
No need to be writing in capital letters, my fellow inhabitant from earth.
I’m sorry for reading your post with the wrong projected emotions, but you actually didn’t seem to have read the “even thou it is a very bad thing” part of my first post, which lead to my assumption that I am dealing with either a) someone angry, or b) an idiot (I’m sure there are other options, but they didn’t occur to me at that time). And as I’m always tending to have a positive attitude towards anyone at first and based on the fact of you using more capital letters than needed, I went with option a.
So you see, my conclusion that you were angry actually was the outcome of thought rather than emotion.
Still though, I have to protest against you insinuating all these motives to my posts. I would never think that my way of expressing things is superior (especially not while writing english, which is not my first language).
Nor do I think that my culture is superior, that my judgment is the only one, or that other people are inferior.
I happen to admire most other cultures, and I am eager to learn more about their ways and understand their view of the world.
But still I realize that I will always be a little ethnocentric, which is unfortunately a thing no one can avoid 100%.
Getting back to the real argument and away from ad-personam claims:
Being ignorant may be one of the causing factors of ethnocentrism, but not all ignorant people are excessively ethnocentric. To be very ethnocentric your judging has to be based on your “own” culture. The anti-whaling protesters in question here are not basing their judging on their cultural system, but just on their believes.
So they are not ethnocentric but merely egocentric. It simply is not a cultural thing.
Closing and to help further understanding: I’m from Austria, speak German, English, French, Latin and intend to learn some basic Arab, Chinese and Japanese. I admit that my culture is quite strange indeed, but hope this info helps you see my POV. What part of the world are you from? And is there any information that would help me see your POv better?
Best regards,
AG
Dyske says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:58 pm“The anti-whaling protesters in question here are not basing their judging on their cultural system, but just on their believes. So they are not ethnocentric but merely egocentric. It simply is not a cultural thing.”
Dear AG,
This is a strange argument but let me try to parse it out. So, you are saying our own personal values and belief systems have nothing to do with the cultures we live in? Say, for instance, most Americans would feel disturbed by the idea of killing and eating dogs or cats, yet they would not feel the same for killing and eating cows or chickens. Are you saying they just HAPPEN TO be living in the US and HAPPEN TO share similar values? And, their disturbance about eating dogs and cats have nothing to do with the American cultural standards?
Let me provide a more subtle example. In my first response to you, I used capital letters for only 1 word (“INTERACT”). I believe most English-speakers and Internet users would understand that capitalizing “interact” is not an expression of anger particularly because “interact” is a value-neutral word. It could be an expression of anger if I was capitalizing offensive words, say, “IDIOT”. The reason the word “interact” was capitalized is to give emphasis on that particular word. In using a word processor, it would be italicized but on a website where text formatting is not so easy or reliable, it is a reasonable practice to capitalize certain words for emphasis. If I were trying to scream at you, I would capitalize the entire sentence.
“based on the fact of you using more capital letters than needed, I went with option a.”
So, in your response that begins with “For heavens sake”, you decided that I was angry because I capitalized the word “interact”. I find this to be strange but given the fact that you are not a native English speaker, I would give the benefit of the doubt that this may be a cultural issue.
How ethnocentrism manifests is that cultural differences would not even be considered as a possibility in this kind of scenario. When you have no knowledge or understanding of other cultures (like how use of capital letters differs depending on language/culture), you have no reference point by which you understand what is cultural and what is not. You said “To be very ethnocentric your judging has to be based on your “own” culture.” To know what “your own culture” is, you need to have a reference point, something to compare it to. If you have the reference point, and understand the cultural differences, YET you choose not to respect the value system of other cultures, and force others to conform to your own, it wouldn’t be “ethnocentrism”; that would be more like “cultural imperialism”. The former is an unconscious mechanism and the latter is a deliberate act very much like racism.
With that distinction, I would say the anti-whaling protesters are NOT advocating cultural imperialism. As you say, they don’t know any better because they have no reference point, and that is what ethnocentrism is.
To answer your question about me: I was born in Japan and lived there until I was 16. Since then I’ve been living in the US.
Dyske says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:26 pmThis paper is fascinating:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/06/1015316108.full.pdf
A brain chemical, oxytocin, may be responsible for ethnocentrism.
Dyske says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:37 pmThis New York Times article is easier to read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11hormone.html
AG says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:06 pmFascinating indeed, I will pass this paper on…
I mainly decided that you where angry, because of you ignoring my disconsent with these people.
Of course the disturbance of eating dogs and cats has something to do with cultural standards, as has the disturbance of eating whale. It is probably true that it is easier for Americans to be anti-whaling “pirates”, but you find people like that in most societies around the world. Their protest is a matter of belief not culture.
And they are simply egocentric. (Ethnocentrism may have a big role in getting there, you have convinced me, but as soon as you are a “pirate” it’s not a cultural issue anymore in any way)
My judgment on your temper may have indeed been an error of cultural understanding, but it has stemmed from me misunderstanding the “rules of english on the internet”, as I thought capital=loud=angry. (I tried to learn and understand and apparently failed)
Also the “For heavens sake” could have been a bilateral error in understanding, as “um Himmels Willen” (german for for heavens sake) is far less angry.
In German you use it mostly in this context:
“For heavens sake, I did not want to insult you, my apologies.” (surprised, baffled and appalled)
I was simply baffled by your claim, because I did not provoke being called someone, who thinks it’s ok to hate.
And I am most certain that I’m not a hater.
Speaking for Europe; whaling and eating whale is by no way “culturally disgusting” here, so the people who are against whaling are actually not influenced by culture, but just by belief. I myself, an avid hunter, am suffering from that fact, because they don’t stop at whales… Hunting gets way more tricky with protesters roaming through the woods, indeed. 😛
Dyske says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:33 pmAlthough I myself associated “culture” with “ethnocentrism”, strictly speaking, ethnocentrism does not have to be about “culture”. This is clear in the paper about oxytocin; the groups they created for their experiments are not cultural groups (such as Japanese, French, American, etc..). So, ethnocentrism is relevant also to any subgroups of a culture, such as animal-rights activists.
AG says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:45 pmIt should probably be renamed, because ethnocentrism is containing “ethnos” which is old greek for people of a common ethnic group. So the term itself is a little bit misleading, or to broad at least.
But after reading all the articles: Yep the anti-whaling people are ethnocentric, but it has not much to do with their ethnicity. And is certainly 100% racism free.
Cudos for your good arguments Dyske
Dyske says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:54 pmThank you, AG, and sorry for my part in misunderstanding your comment.
Noriko says:
January 4th, 2012 at 3:12 pm“Don’t cry racism where is there is none”
“And is certainly 100% racism free”
It is very interesting to see how Western people (I have to say mostly White people because most of the activists and supporters are White people indeed) don’t want to admit there are racism in these anti-whaling/anti-dolphin hunting activities. As Dyske has been explaining this is surely ethnocentrism issue, but you cannot deny there are no racism. Admitting that people are ethnocentric doesn’t give you free ticket to deny racism.
People in the West are enjoying and getting angry at Japan by watching “Whale War” show. It’s titled “War.” People in the West tolerate the aggressive title because the target is Japan. During the Faroe Islands whale harvest season, Sea Shepherd people were in Australia not protesting, then soon after, Sea Shepherd followed Japanese whaling ship. Why? because the Western viewers will enjoy watching harassing Japanese than watching harassing European people.
Anti-dolphin hunting action is named “SavejaJapanDolphin.” And many hollywood celebs appears in the video accusing “Japanese” fishermen, while dolphins are killed by fishing nets all around the world, and the climate temperature issue is more severe to sea creatures. TV shows like Oprah, Ellen, Larry King Live introduce the Cove movie and the protesters as heroes (not hearing any counter arguments from Japanese side). And because these celebs and high profile TV shows openly praise these activists, there are no hesitation for Western society to bash Japan and Japanese people.
At first, I was surprised and shocked to see the video I posted above but most of all, by watching comments posted for Sea Shepherd and the Cove related YouTube videos, I am amazed how Western people could be so ethnocentric and then so easily allow themselves to be racist.
I just think it is very important for the West to realize that Japanese are not using racist card but the anti-whaling and anti dolphin hunting activities are evoking and encouraging racism toward Japanese people among Western society. You should not be naive.
Noriko says:
January 4th, 2012 at 3:35 pmMy purpose of asking Dyske to post the video was not trying to address racist issue… I do not possess the video nor I put the title. But to address how wrong these activists are to the small village fishermen.
I do not oppose anti-Whaling/anti-dolphin hunting actions if they are taken in more respectful way. If these Taiji fishermen somehow come to think what anti-dolphin hunting activists saying are convincing and it is time to change their profession, I congratulate the victory.
But I find no humanity in how Taiji fishermen are treated by Western society. The Cove movie, Hollywood celebs (like Jennifer Aniston, Robin Williams) appearing SaveJapanDolphin video, TV shows (such as Oprah, Ellen) ….
I heard that Taiji fishermen are not only harassed like in the video in their own village by Western people, but also getting life threat letters (not only the fishermen themselves but targeting their family).
They’ve been living in the village and practicing their hunting for hundreds of years. They should not be treated like evil and barbaric people. If they are evil and barbaric people, the idea (which Westen people believe) of considering domesticating animals are okay sounds evil and barbaric for me, cause it’s so ego-centric of human. This harassing should be stopped and real anti-whaling/anti-hunting dolphin people should find another way to achieve their goals. That’s what I wanted to say.
Chilla says:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:26 amThe Japanese occupation – was that racism or ethocentrism?
Dyske says:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:34 amThat’s obviously imperialism.
Whaaaat? says:
January 10th, 2012 at 2:03 amSeriously, ethnocentrism?
It’s a barbaric practice.
Noting that is the case is not the same as saying ‘my nation engages in no barbaric practices’.
They all do.
And they don’t stop unless people make them aware that they are watching, and that it is unacceptable.
Like the commercial whaling under the guise of ‘research’. Obvious.
Call me a racist gaijin if that helps avoid the issue, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Dyske says:
January 10th, 2012 at 10:22 amA comment like that is what makes me realize there is no point in arguing about this issue. If “Whaaaat” actually understood what “ethnocentrism” means, he/she would realize that his very comment itself is a perfect example of what ethnocentrism is. No matter how much time and effort I put into arguing about this topic, people like “Whaaaat” do not care to read it or understand what I’ve already repeated so many times. And, all they care about is to cherry-pick facts or arguments that support their own views, ignore everything else, unload their frustration, and feel superior about their own point of views. There is no will or desire to understand the opposing views, which is what causes ethnocentrism.
As I did for the other threads on this issue, I’m going to close this one too, as it is utterly pointless to debate it.