Talk:Makah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
View comments (edit)
Washington Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Washington, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Washington. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

I am currently doing a great deal of research on whaling in the Pacific Northwest, and I couldn't help but notice that one of the linked sites contains a major, important error.

At http://www.uoregon.edu/~mmoss/makah.htm , Makah Whaling Misunderstood, near the end, the author states that "The Makah hunt was sanctioned by the International Whaling Commission because it did not pose a threat to the survival of gray whales." The IWC never gave the Makah carte blanche, and in fact had already refused their request for a whaling quota in session. The Makah Tribe did not meet the guidelines of "aboriginal subsistence whaling." They did (and do) not have an unbroken tradition (they stopped in the 20's and didn't start again until the recent 1999 hunt), and they do not require the meat to survive ("subsistence"). Instead, the United States traded some of its Inuit bowhead quota for some of the Russian Federation's Gray quota in a "horse trading" deal not endorsed by the IWC. This is the quota the Makah have been hunting under. The person who added the link does not have an active talk page, and I'm not someone who generally does major edits (like removing an external link); I would ask the linked site to change, but it is a transcribed article. I ask that someone who knows more about procedures in these cases do something about this. Tyro the Kinky Kitty 21:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Correction to original post: It was not Inuit, but Yupik (Central and Western Alaskan native) bowhead quota that was traded. Tyro the Kinky Kitty 21:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that the Makah hunt was not officially sanctioned by the IWC, but your interpretation of 'subsistence' as meaning 'needing meat to survive' is inaccurate. The IWC's definition of subsistence encompasses cultural, traditional, social and economic aspects as well, and these are evident features of the contemporary hunt.
woodschmoe, Mar. 7 2006. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.146.183 (talk • contribs)

Contents

[edit] Way of Life

I have edited the third paragraph, and removed the last sentence which stated that the Makah are thought to be the first people to whale (there is ample evidence from other parts of the world, in particular Korea, that whaling precedes the Makah's presence in their territories), and reworded the part which described the "technologies possessed by the Makah", as the list was far from complete, and 'technology' includes the traditional knowledge which directs the use/manufacture of a tool/process (the artifice), not simply the material component (the artifact). --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.146.183 (talk • contribs)

[edit] category

hi. perhaps i am misunderstood?

i removed Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Northwest Coast because the entire Wakashan family is already under this category. this because is Category:Wakashan languages is under it & Makah is under Category:Wakashan languages. putting Makah under Indigenous languages of the North American Northwest Coast is redundant. that's all. peace – ishwar  (speak) 01:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gotten into this issue in other subjects and now, as then, I will state my strong feeling that not everyone who uses this website knows how the categories work and that you can find Indigenous languages of the North American Northwest Coast by clicking up from Wakashan languages. The more connections a user studying the subject can easily make, the better, thus regardless of your "stickler" nature about the cats, it's more helpful to keep both easily available to the general reader. Badagnani 02:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
ok. thanks for the note. i dont have strong feelings & your way is probably better. i was just following the guidelines & making the Makah like the other members of the family. i guess you will get into this issue with others until they amend the categories explanation page (or maybe theyve already done so? i dont check that stuff). please continue making things easier for readers. peace – ishwar  (speak) 03:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced

This is a great article but it does not cite any sources. BJTalk 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here - four sources are cited in the external links section. John Broughton | Talk 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the sources are not cited throughout the article. BJTalk 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
True - not a good practice, but not unusual. However, the question at hand is the use of the {{unreferenced}} template. Template talk:Unreferenced doesn't seem to fully address this. In any case, suppose I were to change the section heading for external links to read "References". Would that rule out using this template? I ask because as I read WP:CITE - and I'd appreciate your thoughts on that as well - such a heading is to be used for the section with the sources for the article, and I'm guessing (I came late to the party on this article) that the external links are in fact the sources. John Broughton | Talk 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Rewrite

This article was lacking several important historical facts and looked as if it needed a bit of rearranging, so I rewrote most of the sections in this article and added a section for Whaling and the Ozette dig. I've cited references for a few of the additions, but let me know if I missed something. I think it flows quite a bit better, but I'm sure it could still use some work. I'm particularly troubled by the whaling section as it goes into a little more detail than I would like, but it didn't seem right to pare it down. Gobonobo 09:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whaling treaty

I removed the line "Others maintain that just as other Americans are no longer allowed to kill whales, so the Makah should be forbidden as well." from the end of the whaling discussion; it didn't fit the portion to which it was added, and addresses a matter of opinion that is perhaps better addressed in a sub-section of the "Whaling" entry. The line doesn't flow from the text which precedes it, a discussion of the Makah treaty. These "other Americans" cannot hunt whales because they have no treaty right to do so. What they 'maintain' is irrelevant to the wording of the treaty, or the question of treaty rights. Besides, those 'other americans', the Eskimo, are active whalers. Apparently, some of these 'others' are still allowed to kill whales, rendering the line untrue, at the very least.

I don't agree with this reasoning. At the time the treaty was signed, everyone whaled (not just Native people), as it was an essential economic activity. It's a case of the times changing, creating an uncertainty because the "other Americans" don't whale anymore. Since the "other Americans" don't whale anymore, does that make the Makah follow the "other Americans"? It's similar to the right to bear arms--which hinges in its amendment on "a well regulated militia"; ordinary citizens were expected to carry their own weapons to battle when needed. That's no longer the case because the "well regulated militia" isn't made up of ordinary citizens anymore. Badagnani 05:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect to your position, and I understand what you are saying, I think you have misunderstood a couple of key things about the Makah treaty. First, the Makah, while American citizens, are also citizens of the Makah nation: the treaty has the legal standing of an international agreement, and the Makah possess specific, inherent rights as a nation. The phrase "in common with" does not indicate that so long as other americans whale, the Makah may whale: it suggests a commonality of entitlement to their treaty rights...Just as 'other americans' have specific rights, so to do the Makah, on an equal legal standing vis a vis the U.S. justice system. Yet this does not diminish/abrogate the Makah's treaty rights as a nation. "Other Americans" may well choose not to continue whaling, and this is their right. This choice does not have any impact on what the Makah are entitled to do. You and I may have common rights: should you choose not to exercise your rights, it has no bearing on the status of mine. Changing times for 'other americans' are not valid grounds for abrogating the treaty rights of a separate nation: this principle has been upheld by the courts, and is not in question. The phrase 'in common with' is the sticking point: clearly, the courts do not intepret it solely with respect to the practice of whaling, and the activities of 'other americans', but instead as a matter of common entitlement to established rights. To engage your point about the right to bear arms (briefly, as it is not really a pertinent analogy) despite your objections, the courts have routinely upheld the amendment: and with regard to treaties and rights, it is the decisions of the courts that matter, particularily with regards to the cautious approach required in encyclopedic accounts. I still maintain that the issue raised is better located as a sub-section of the "Whaling" section of Wikipedia, or perhaps those interested could create an entry on the "Makah whaling controversy", with appropriate reference to international law, and specific legal intepretations of the treaty right. And, as per mention of Eskimo whalers, the line was in fact untrue, at the very least. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.177.8 (talk • contribs)

Thank you--that was a very helpful and reasoned answer, and helps to clarify these verbal issues as they are interpreted in the law. Badagnani 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whaling rights revoked?

Hasn't the Makah right to whale been revoked? I recall hearing a while ago that it was taken away by a court ruling. Shouldn't this be mentioned in this article? -- Andrew Parodi 08:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

From: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/Whales-Dolphins-Porpoise/Gray-Whales/Makah-Whale-Hunt.cfm
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in 2004 that the Makah, to pursue any treaty rights for whaling, must comply with the process prescribed in the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for authorizing take of marine mammals otherwise prohibited by a moratorium. (Take means to or attempt to, harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.) On Feb. 14, 2005, NOAA Fisheries Service received a request from the Makah for a limited waiver of the MMPA’s take moratorium, including issuance of regulations and any necessary permits.
"The Northwest Region is conducting a full evaluation of the tribe’s MMPA waiver request. The first step in that evaluation is to develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (see NEPA Process section). Please check our Website for updates as we continue to evaluate the Makah’s MMPA waiver request.
From http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5301
Litigation Leaves Further Hunts in Doubt
Then on June 9, 2000, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Burgess and ordered that hunts cease until a new environmental assessment was prepared. The new assessment was issued in July 2001, again approving the hunt. In 2002, the International Whatling Commission approved the Makah request to renew its quota of whales for an additional five years, and Makah whalers began to prepare for a hunt that year. As they did, some of the most ardent anti-whaling groups said they would not try to obstruct the hunt. PAWS decided not to return in part because its campaign was interpreted as a slur against treaty rights. And Sea Shepherd, leader of the anti-whaling fleet, announced it would not oppose the Makah hunt directly, although it would continue to support local opponents. Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd said the Makah hunt was a distraction from efforts to oppose large-scale whaling by nations such as Japan, Norway, Iceland, and the Danish Faroe Islands.
However, whaling opponents including the Humane Society of the United States and the Fund for Animals had appealed the new environmental assessment. Judge Burgess rejected the challenges, but on December 20, 2002, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit again reversed him, placing the hunt on hold indefinitely. The panel ruled that although the hunt would not have any significant impact on the overall gray whale population, the assessment did not adequately address possible impacts on the whale population in the local area of the northern Washington coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca. The court halted the hunt until a full fledged environmental impact statement evaluating those impacts is prepared. Moreover, in a ruling seen as having sweeping implications for all Indian treaty rights, the panel announced that the hunt cannot proceed unless Makah whalers obtain a permit or exemption under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
Hunt opponents celebrated the decision. Fund for Animals president Michael Markarian said "We are elated that the court has put a stop to this illegal and inhumane whale hunt" (The Seattle Times, December 21, 2002). For their part, the Makah, other Indians, and experts in Indian law were all stunned by the ruling that the Marine Mammal Protection Act applied despite the treaty guaranteeing the Makahs’ right to hunt whales. Legal experts said that the ruling appeared to conflict with the long-standing principle that Indian treaties are the supreme law of the land and cannot be overridden by general statutes.
Expressing its concern that the panel "ruling may lead to new, draconian restrictions being imposed on tribal fishing notwithstanding the tribe's treaty rights and regardless of the actual impact of the tribal fishing on the resource" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 21, 2002), the Makah tribal council announced that it would appeal the decision to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit, and if necessary to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In addition to its broader impacts, Makah leaders lamented the decision’s effect on the tribe’s efforts at cultural revitalization. Tribal chairman Nathan Tyler said the ruling "will hurt across the board. That day the whale was on the beach, the whole town was down there. People were happy and looking forward to getting some of that whale meat. Everybody is going to feel it here. They are not going to be happy with the decision" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 21, 2002).
While the panel decision is unlikely to be the final word, the prospect of more years of litigation with an unknown outcome leaves it uncertain, as of early 2003, when or if Makah whalers will once more launch carved cedar canoes in search of gray whales, as they did for generations through the 1920s and again briefly at the turn of the twenty first century.

[edit] Character form the Unicode private use area

'Qwidiččaʔa·t' (Kwih-dich-chuh-ahtx) has unicode character F847 at the end. That displays as a question mark on my PC, and it probably should, being from the Unicode private use area. Is there another character that could be used? Could look like IPA phonetic are used to to write the Makah alphabet? 212.55.51.226 (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More images

I've added a bunch more images by Asahel Curtis from 1910 to Commons:Category:Makah. Several are related to whaling. I suspect some of them should be used in this article. I leave it to someone else to decide which. - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)