Friday, December 08, 2006

Your heritage versus your environment

This is just my opinion. I'm not saying I am absolutely right, but I know I am not utterly without reason either. Living in Canada, I often read on the papers about the native's ways of living and their rights to preserve their heritage. While I am not (completely) against that, it still sometimes frustrates me how protecting a people's culture oftentimes, if not always, takes precedence over protecting our environment.


First, this is not to point fingers or to put blame on aboriginal peoples only. I can just easily write an entry on the barbaric annual Canadian-government subsidized seal slaughter. But once again, this post is about my frustration on the fine line between deeming certain activities as integral to a culture and recognizing their potential and actual adverse effects on the environment.


A recent Supreme Court ruling allows the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet of Atlantic Canada to cut down crown trees for consumption. This means that even though the Mi'kmaq and Maliseets no longer use canoes or live in wigwams, they can still cut down crown trees for making furniture and firewood. The court says the native's rights are "not locked in time".


I have yet to read up on this topic some more before I want to form any solid opinion. However, it did bring to mind another topic that has, time and again, brought forth frustration and disbelief to this blogger. That topic is whaling.


Who is hunting our whales? There are the commercial whalers (Icelend and Norway, for instance) and they are the worst kind of whalers. Then there are scientific whalers (ex. Japan), and there are the aboriginal peoples (ex. Inuit and Chukotka). I object to all three kinds whaling activities equally and vehemently. Why? Because whaling, in my opinion, is unnecessary, cruel and barbaric. And no, it is not comparable to killing and eating cattle because cattle has been domesticated and is being farmed. Whales are not. Whale numbers are dwindling and, at this rate, we are close to a point of no return. Yet, we still give special considerations when it comes to the exploitation of these natural resources by aboriginal people for the purpose of subsistence. Sure, it might be sustainable but for how long? Also, it presents a very static view of a people's culture. It implies that a people's culture cannot and will not evolve over time. And that is, in my opinion, wrong.


When you embrace a new era, you inevitably lose part of your heritage. When you are faced with the realities of a threatened environment, you as a people might have to shed some of your culture and determine a new one for your future generations. This culture over the years will form a heritage that
  • regards all life more important than tradition
  • accepts how change is necessary to adapt to new threats to our environment, and
  • ackowledges how everyone is obliged to protect mother earth -- no exemptions.

This in my opinion are the kind of rights that are truly not locked in time.

this coffee break @ 11:39 AM