Polluting the language to ease our conscience (Paul Watson)

[Guest guest]

Polluting the language to ease our conscience

 

Source >

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2 & ObjectID=10330828

 

 

Paul Watson

 

26.06.05

 

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 this word sustainable. This gem

popped up around the time of the UN Conference on the

Environment and Development in 1992.

 

For example, there's 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).

 

What does it mean? After you strip away the spin and

the green-washing it simply means " business as usual " .

 

Another word used these days is stocks. It makes it

sound like the ocean is our private warehouse. People

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 " .

 

Then there's the Canadian seal hunt. This is not

really a hunt when you think about it. No one is

tracking, stalking, or pursuing seals. The sealers

merely walk through a nursery of defenceless seal pups

and whack 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

Obscenity.

 

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?

 

The Canadian government has even tried to label baby

seals as adults by defining an adult as any seal over

three weeks 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.

 

When you put some of these 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 humane, as in " humane killing " .

 

This term suggests that killing is acceptable as long

as it is humane. It actually means killing of animals

is acceptable by humans so long as we can appease our

guilt.

 

This, of course, has led to 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.

 

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 Minke 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.

 

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 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-aggrandising description. Human beings are

not meat-eaters. Carnivores hunt down, pounce upon,

and rip the flesh from the body of their prey while

the animal is still alive.

 

In fact, the average non-vegetarian human is a carrion

eater. They eat dead flesh. 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 categorising of people into

different camps in an attempt at dehumanisation.

Environmentalists are often called eco-terrorists

although no environmentalist has ever terrorised or

hurt anyone. Yet corporations like Union Carbine,

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 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.

 

* Paul Watson was a founder of Greenpeace and is

president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. He

lives in the United States.

 

* Contributions to our Opinion section are welcome.

Send your comment (maximum 1200 words) in plain text

format using the email link below. Be sure to include

your full name and contact details. Selected comments

are published each Sunday.