With Sales Down, Whale Meat Flogged As Source of Strength 311
beaverdownunder writes "From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: 'Japan's peak whaling body has launched a new campaign to promote whale meat as a nutritious food that enhances physical strength and reduces fatigue. With about 5,000 tonnes of whale meat sitting unwanted in freezers around Japan, the country's Institute for Cetacean Research has decided to launch a new campaign to promote the by-product of its so-called scientific whaling program. Once popular in school lunches, younger generations of Japanese rarely, if ever, eat whale."
May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:5, Funny)
The bastards and their ships need to be pulled down to the deep dark ooze of the abyss where tentacled beasties will toy with their souls for eternity.
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:5, Funny)
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:5, Funny)
The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching the question: How many whales can you catch in one week?
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
Re: (Score:3)
In my edition of that book, the genius US editors "corrected" that to "How many whales can you watch in one week?" Because why would a research ship be catching whales? Obvious error. They also inexplicably changed the scene where Crowley's demonic superiors communicate to him through Woody on _Cheers_ to Rose on Golden Girls. Apparently they were worried that US readers would be unfamiliar with _Cheers_.
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:5, Insightful)
They claim they want to prove that whales are numerous enough to again allow for commercial whaling, and that such proof would be impossible to gather without research. Assuming you see whales as just another resource, like fish, this is a reasonable stance to take.
The underlying issue is that many countries want a total moratorium on whaling for cultural reasons. Japan and several other countries with long culture of whaling view this as insanity and see whales as the same as any other nautical resource. In a way they are right, many of modern fish stocks are in much worse condition then many of the whale stocks, but because many of the countries that want total moratorium have severe vested interests in fishing but no whaling, they deflect attention from painful decisions that need to be taken in regards to fishery policy by focusing attention on whaling which is essentially free for them - as they do not have a whaling fleet or culture of whaling.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "sitting unwanted in freezers" and "killing whales" is part of your moronic idea of popluation study? Oh! The Bald Eagle is Endangered.... Guess What's For Dinner! Get bent you idiot.
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:5, Insightful)
What part of "sitting unwanted in freezers" and "killing whales" is part of your moronic idea of popluation study? Oh! The Bald Eagle is Endangered.... Guess What's For Dinner! Get bent you idiot.
Just an FYI: not all whale species are endangered. You can see some examples here (prepare to give your L type cones [wikipedia.org] a function test):
Humpback whale [iucnredlist.org], Minke whale [iucnredlist.org], Southern Right whale [iucnredlist.org].
As you can see, those species are listed as "Least Concern" by the IUCN, which happens to be the same category that the sewer rat [wikipedia.org] receives. There have been allegations that endangered whales have been killed by the Japanese whaling industry, which is obviously reprehensible.
BTW, there have also been allegations that the "Least Concern" bald eagle [iucnredlist.org] (oh, also FYI: it's no longer endangered) have been killed by the Amish chicken farming industry. [lancasteronline.com]
I don't really have an opinion on the ethics of whaling "least concern" whale species. I consider that concept similar to the beef industry. Why is killing and eating cow acceptable if killing and eating non-threatened whale species is not? Of course, you will notice that the ethical consideration is orthogonal to the legality consideration.
I am vegetarian, so I am not faced with cognitive dissonance about the situation, but I don't care which animals that other people eat if it isn't actively promoting extinction of a species.
Re: (Score:2)
the difference would be cows are currently maintained as a sustainable managed food source. whales are not; whales would only be able to provide food on the scale of cows for a year or two before being going from LC to EX.
Re: (Score:3)
the difference would be cows are currently maintained as a sustainable managed food source. whales are not; whales would only be able to provide food on the scale of cows for a year or two before being going from LC to EX.
True, but is anyone actually proposing that? As with fisheries, there is a sustainable catch limit on these least concern animals. Though this isn't a binary consideration, it seems concern should be allocated more for the northwestern Atlantic cod fishery [wikipedia.org] than taking a sustainable number (whatever that means objectively in context) of these non-threatened whales.
I mentioned the cod because Americans are likely to be consuming fish sticks, etc, even though we don't have a cultural predilection to eat whale.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the difference would be cows are currently maintained as a sustainable managed food source. whales are not; whales would only be able to provide food on the scale of cows for a year or two before being going from LC to EX.
If feeding an animal a wholly inappropriate diet petroleum based diet (corn and dead chickens), attempting to mitigate the damage resulting from such an unnatural diet via the continual use of sub-therapeutic anti-biotics, and extensive ecological damage due to highly concentrated and toxic manure, then, yeah sustainably managed food source.
** Applies to factory meat only, grass-fed and finished is a whole different story
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:5, Interesting)
"There have been allegations that endangered whales have been killed by the Japanese whaling industry, which is obviously reprehensible."
It's not just simply allegation, some of the more endangered species are on their annual catch list.
"I am vegetarian, so I am not faced with cognitive dissonance about the situation, but I don't care which animals that other people eat if it isn't actively promoting extinction of a species."
It's not cognitive dissonance, there's sound scientific reasoning behind it all.
Whales feed on things like krill, and if you lower the whale population, the population of the likes of krill increase. When the population of krill increases the population of phytoplankton decreases, when the population of phytoplankton decreases some fish stock lose their breeding and feeding grounds and the population of fish can decline and so on and so forth - you get the idea.
We can't say well, humpbacks are overpopulated so let's just start killing them now, because the fact is the likes of humpbacks are overpopulated because they've been able to thrive on the excess of krill leftover from the depleted populations of the likes of blue whales and so forth but as blues increase in population they will start to take back their fair share and the population of humpbacks will decline back to more natural levels. Ultimately the balance of populations has been decided by evolution in that the more successful a species the greater a share of the shared food source it can devour and the natural balance of populations will be based on that - if humans leave an ecosystem alone the populations will eventually return to their natural state, but it's a long process and certainly doesn't happen overnight.
Enter humans into the equation and if we decrease the population of a successful species like blue whales the population of the likes of humpbacks increase. The problem is that what you're now advocating is that well, there's plenty of humpbacks now the blue whales are depleted so let's deplete them too, and that's not a problem if you do this sustainably such that the amount of humpbacks you remove is equivalent to the relative growth in blue whales as their population recovers but that's not what the Japanese want, they now want to start hunting the likes of humpback as fast as blues were hunted so that the net result is an overall reduction in the amount of krill eating species and such.
This is the fundamental problem, it's about ensuring there is a net amount of, I guess you could call it whale biomass, to keep things like krill at safe levels. The fact is that yes, whilst the likes of humpbacks and minke are at above natural population levels had we not hunted other species to the point of extinction that that's still necessary to maintain balance in the relevant ecosystems. Or to put it succinctly, we need the increased minke/humpback etc. populations to fulfil the role of the decreased populations of other whales.
Japan is just scared that if it just gives it up and admits it was wrong on this issue that it'll look weak and that the Chinese will start taking islands off them expecting them to relent on that sort of thing too. They'd be better off doing their population that has no interest in this meat a favour and give it up, saving their country millions that they could put towards sorting their otherwise fucked up economy out because the government subsidises the whaling industry in almost it's entirety. There's no economic benefit, there's no cultural benefit (the people have already stopped eating it), and there's no environmental benefit, it's entirely a pathetically poor political decision that, if not kept in check by the rest of the world genuinely puts many large fish stocks at risk than they already are currently due to the knock on effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite agree with the ethical argument, which is why I do neither.
However one huge difference between cattle and whales is the way that they kill them. A bolt to the head is not the slow death of an explosive harpoon. Average time to death for the last year of Norwegian whaling was 3 minutes, with the longest being 50 minutes.
http://whales7.tripod.com/policies/methods.html [tripod.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So eating whale meat is like eating sewer rats? You should apply for a job at the marketing department of the Japan Whaling and Fishing Association. They need someone with your expertise.
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:5, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with fishing stocks. For a start, whales are mammals, not fish. The whale watching industry in Australia is worth more than 31 million dollars a year, worlwide the value is in billions.
The humpback whales now travelling up the East Coast of Australia once numbered 500 and now, due to the whaling ban now number over 18,000.
Do you think that the humpbacks would come anywhere near a boat if the Japanese whalers once again start harpooning them as they've been planning to do? You'd see a multi-billion dollar industry destroyed.
Actually, Australian fisheries are in a far better condition than many around the world. They do especially well when compared to Japanese fisheries, if there are any left.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
From an academic standpoint, food production outweighs entertainment.
Maybe that statement is generally true (although I do wonder why you consider academia to be the adjudicators of what is important), but we are not talking about an essential food resource here. We can feed the world without killing whales.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most meat consumed is from farm animals, who basically exist to be someone's dinner. In that regard, nothing is going to go extinct because of a hamburger. Certainly not cattle.
The problem with fish (and other marine life) is that while there are some fisheries and such to produce more, it is much more difficult to raise fish in a closed environment where they can be corralled and, if need be, protected. Not to mention the fact that mass fishing involves a lot of collateral damage to other species. In e
Re: (Score:3)
This has nothing to do with fishing stocks. For a start, whales are mammals, not fish.
So? It's about sustainable catching of marine animals. So, semantics don't matter that much. And if you're going to go with excessive pedantry, you'll know that "fish" isn't really a great classification biologically speaking since it does indeed miss out whales (and others).
Re: (Score:3)
I travel to Japan frequently, and a few years ago it was with somewhat disgusted amusement I read an editorial in a Tokyo newspaper about how whaling was beneficial, in that whales were largely to blame for depleted fisheries. They completely failed to reconcile, or even mention, how fish populations declining parallel whale population declines, or present any evidence for the assertion at all.
There is serious denial there.
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:4, Interesting)
And maybe the Australians should start sinking whaling ships that breach Australia's exclusive economic zone or territorial waters to hunt whales illegally against international and local laws.... not that I care about the bloody whales, only that they think they should be exempt from international law.
Do explain which international laws forbid whale hunting the way Japan practices it. It's a completely legal practice according to IWC.
Also kindly cite how Australia's EEZ has any relevance to this case. Be specific - do not cite unsubstantiated claims by interested parties as absolute evidence.
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:5, Informative)
Do explain which international laws forbid whale hunting the way Japan practices it. It's a completely legal practice according to IWC.
Whaling for food is illegal. But Japan has come up with some bullshit excuse that they need to conduct scientific research which is why they need to kill whales, then selling the meat as byproduct just makes good sense.
The problem with this is that there is simply no need to kill so many whales for research it's just that Japan's (ruling) older generation view eating whale as such an essential part of their culture they refuse to contemplate change on this front. You might be able to make an argument that what Japan does it legal, but it is still against the spirit of the treaty.
I also think that the individual ships flout the law because they know their is no appetite to prosecute them back home. I certainly think that the average Japanese whaling ship captain will happily follow his prey into Australian waters then lie about it later if they Australian Navy is not around to stop them.
Finally, later this year or early next year the final word on whether what Japan does is legal or not will come down from the ICJ. That will be final and binding (no appeals allowed) but until then no one really knows either way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In their defense, remember that the whales did drop those nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Re: (Score:2)
No.. No... It was chickens and cows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:4, Interesting)
There factory ships aren't allowed to operate in American waters, but they do anyhow. Turns out the Coast Guard has to give them 24 hour notice before boarding, and have to find the fish in a non-canned state. Since they can process the fish in just a couple hours, they continue fishing until just a little while before the Coast Guard can board. Despite everyone being able to see what they are doing, the Coast Guard can not legally do anything unless they find the fish after they board.
This isn't just speculation. I've heard plenty of Coast Guard complain about it in the bar. For that matter, I've watched the ships do it. Sometimes you don't even need binoculars or a telescope since they are so close to shore.
I know fishing and whaling are two different fleets, but they are both on the waters and considered 'fishing' by many.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It really isn't a part of Japanese culture even. It was common to eat whale meat after WWII but that was because of overall food shortages, not because it was some ancient cultural tradition.
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:4, Interesting)
It's only 'legal practice' because Japan outright ignores the moratorium the other countries in the IWC agreed upon. Basically, Japan just says "We don't want to join your club so we don't have to follow its rules". They also lie, and lie, and lie about how they are hunting whales exclusively 'for research'. I think the fact that they can't sell their (nasty, fatty) whale meat also contradicts their claim that "It's a Japanese tradition and people love it".
Every Japanese person I asked whether they would eat whale said something like "” or "no way, whale is nasty". I think it's time to hang it up for good, ICR. It's also the best way to put an end to functionally-retarded morons like Paul Watson.
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh* /. can't handle my Japanese text? Congratulations on your leet web programming skills, admins. The first quotes said "masaka, kujira nanka daikirai".
I guess
Re: (Score:2)
Even though it's a PITA, restricting the character set makes things slightly less annoying around here most of the time.
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:4, Informative)
... Leaving aside the AAT’s status under Australian domestic law, it can be noted that sovereignty over Antarctica is a sensitive international topic and only the United Kingdom, France, Norway and New Zealand officially recognise Australian sovereignty over the AAT. Japan does not recognise Australian sovereignty, along with the United States of America, China, and Russia. Japan also renounced all claims to Antarctica at the end of World War II.
Recognition, however, is not the test of sovereignty under international law. General recognition by other states of a state’s sovereignty over a particular territory no doubt assists a state in establishing sovereignty but it is not determinative. Under customary international law acquisition of sovereignty over territory that does not already belong to another state is established by effective occupation of the territory. While some authors argue “Antarctica is not subject to the ordinary legal regime of land territory, and rather than res nullius it is res communis” and, therefore, unable to support a claim of sovereignty, there is little support for this in the principles established by courts and other bodies exercising international jurisdiction. The decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (1933) PCIJ Series A/B No 53 is particularly significant in relation to sovereignty over inhospitable, thinly populated polar territories such as Antarctica...
... If Australian sovereignty over the AAT is established under the principles of international law, even to a smaller geographic area than claimed by Australia, why do so few nations recognise this sovereignty? One answer is that the recognition of sovereignty is a political process, not merely legal. By refusing to recognise Australian sovereignty, Japan and other nations keep alive their ability to us e resources in the AAT. This ability is fettered only by the practical difficulties in operating in the hostile and remote Antarctic environment, and by the Antarctic Treaty System. This approach is contrary to The Rule of Law but explained by the realpolitik of international relations...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that whaling is an atrocity, calling for the sinking of whalers is maybe a tad bit overboard.
Just a tad bit, mind you.
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:4, Funny)
The whales might disagree. In fact it seems they did at one point - Moby Dick was inspired by actual events, and not just the actions of a single whale, but an uprising among the wider population. Of course we rapidly demonstrated our ability to counter-attack with ever-greater ferocity and they seem to have eventually decided that fighting us was counter-productive.
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should humans?
On an ethical level whales demonstrate intelligence and self-awareness at least on par with the great apes, and possibly considerably superior since there's a fair argument to be made that our tests test for "intelligence like ours", which presumably works okay for our not-to-distant cousins in the other great apes, and even monkeys, but whales diverged from our own ancestors *long* before significant intelligence had evolved, and proceeded to evolve an intelligence optimized for a very alien environment.
In addition whales fill an important ecological niche in the most important ecosystem on the planet (if the oceans die the rest of the planet isn't far behind - it provides most of the atmospheric oxygen for starters), and we're doing a very good job of killing the ocean in general and whales in particular - many species of which are still on the brink of extinction, with only between a few hundreds to a few thousands of individuals in existence.
Humans on the other hand are... us? What claim do we have to special treatment other than our our presumed intellectual superiority(or at least tool-making ability) and superior firepower? We're certainly in no danger as a species except via the long-term consequences of our own actions, and we don't fill any particularly sensitive ecological niche that pigs or rats couldn't fill just as easily.
Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls (Score:5, Interesting)
the reason they won't back down on it now is Japan is pretty tired of the west telling it what to do.
Sorry, you're wrong here. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, not about the historicity, but about how this is going on ahead because "Japan is pretty tired of the west telling it what to do.".
If that were the case, then the whaling industry would not have 5000 tons sitting unwanted and have to start a completely bogus claim about the meat they can't sell, not even as pet food.
Japan themselves have decided that they really don't need to eat whale meat. The consumption is way down. However, the industry making money off this don't want to find out they're buggy w
Re:Sorry, you're wrong here. (Score:4, Insightful)
The "corporations" are not greedy. Saying they are is like saying guns kill people. The PEOPLE that run the corporations are responsible. Furthermore, their actions are entirely legal under Japanese law - laws set by their elected government.
It's really no different that that old "beef, it's what's for dinner!" ad campaign. Running an ad campaign is simply an effort to sell their product and maintain cash flow so everyone working for the corporation still has a job. The part you seem not to grasp is that if they go broke, they can't simply tax rich people for more money like a socialist government. Run out of money and everyone is out of a job.
In the end, if the Japanese decide they don't like whaling it they can vote for representatives who can change the laws. In the meantime it's simple supply and demand. Economic forces are what will ultimately stop whaling, not a bunch of whining hippies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simplistic view, sorry. In most corporations and in 1005 of large and very large ones, the corporate charters, the whole structure of corporate governance, from the board down to the lowliest HR intern, everything is geared towards the goals of corporate survival, growth and profit (in this order of priorities). To say that any one individual can do more than nuance the actions of such organizations is to miss the entire point of their existence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how many humans are there and how many whales are left, I think the choice which should be slaughtered is kinda obvious.
so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Europeans (Score:2)
Re:Europeans (Score:5, Insightful)
When extinction became an issue civilised nations agreed to stop whaling.
The exceptions are for indigenous populations like those living in polar regions and some scientific work.
As a result in the short term whales are no longer threatened by extinction but in the long term they still face threats.
Japan's excuse would be laughable if it weren't for the fact when all previous whaling nations would do the same the problem of extinction would surface again.
Where a great nation shows child-like behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
When extinction became an issue civilised nations agreed to stop whaling.
Only that the whale species which are now hunted (in very limited quantities) are not threathened by extinction.
Not that I really care. Whale meat is not something I will ever miss. It used to be the real cheap meat around here. For a reason.
Re:Europeans (Score:4, Informative)
Not true. Both Japan and Iceland catch Fin Whales which are classified as 'Endangered'
Re: (Score:2)
may come on the backs of other species declines. .
You mean some of the other stuff that we're also overfishing...?
It's actually surprisingly cheap... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's actually surprisingly cheap... (Score:4, Funny)
. . . fried whale, whale sashimi, whale soup, and some udon noodles . . .
"But I don't like whale . . . do you have something without whale . . . ?
"You mean . . . udon noodles, without whale . . . ? Uck!"
"Can I have spam, instead of whale . . . ?"
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
I've only spent a few months in the USA, but I don't remember any restaurants I saw offering all-you-can-drink including alcoholic beverages along with a fixed price meal, and yet I recall this being fairly common in Tokyo. Or are you deliberately misreading the grandparent so that you can call him a retard?
This is just because many japanese people lack the gene to process alcohol efficiently so can't drink for shit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2262318.stm [bbc.co.uk]
This makes excessive drinking more of a cultural taboo than it is in Europe and America where it was essential to drink in order to get the nutrition you needed to survive from seasonal crops that only came once a year in our climate. Japan and the far east had the ability to grow crops that could be harvested throughout the year unlike grain.
Re: (Score:2)
You've clearly never caught the last train home on any night of the week in any city in Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
Counter-campaign (Score:4, Funny)
"Eat this and you, too, can look like a whale!"
Re: (Score:2)
Their sumo wrestlers are trying to anyway.
Not just for food (Score:2)
I'm thinking of converting my Hummer to run on whale oil.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking of converting my Hummer to run on whale oil.
Seems like a hand job would work better with whale oil than a hummer...
Re:Not just for food (Score:4, Informative)
I'm thinking of converting my Hummer to run on whale oil.
According to this [google.com], contemporary sperm whale oil production peaked at almost 39 barrels/whale in 1952. At current US daily consumption of ~19 million barrels(and assuming that whale squeezin's are equivalent to inorganic oils), a mere ~488,000 whales per day could entirely eliminate our wasteful demand for oil!
That would exhaust the estimated pre-hunting wild population in about two days; but I'm sure that bold advances in aquaculture will step in to fill the gap.
Again? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't know where,
don't know when.
But I'll know whale meat again,
some sunnyyyyyyy day!
Re: (Score:2)
Is that supposed to be a Haiku?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry no mod points today;made me smile
Health benefits ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Food from the ocean is now thoughly abusrd (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Whaling is bad (Score:5, Funny)
It'll destroy humanity. I learned it in Star Trek 4 [wikipedia.org].
Source of Mercury (Score:3, Interesting)
Tests have shown that whale and dolphin meat has enough mercury to be practically toxic waste. Japanese would be crazy to start eating it, especially in large amounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Same goes for pretty much any fish that is on top of the food chain, such as various tuna species.
Re: (Score:2)
But mercury is a metal.
And metals are strong.
And mercury doesn't fatigue.
So all their claims must be true.
Little known fact about whaling (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not really about whales or their meat. It's about oil and similar resources.
According to international treaties, under certain conditions a country has the right to drill for oil in a certain area if it has traditionally and recently been exploiting the area economically in other ways. This explains a few things about the Japanese whaling programme that would make no sense otherwise. Why they are doing this even though they have no need for the meat, as the article makes clear. But also why they are not making a better effort to disguise the whaling as scientific. Sure, they are arguing before the IWC that it's primarily scientific. But sooner or later they will have to argue before a different body that it's primarily economic, and has always been so. The more obviously economic the programme is, the better it is for their purpose, so long as they can get away with it before the IWC.
in my honest opinion (Score:3)
Re:in my honest opinion (Score:5, Funny)
we are coming to a point where we can literally grow our foods
Oh dear, have I accidentally set my time machine 10000 years too far into the past? I was supposed to end up in 2013.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, have you ever seen a tiger's dong? Why'd I wanna have a pencil dick with a built in cheese grater?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, so if no-one is eating it, why bother with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
If people aren't interested in eating whale meat, why not just give up on the hunt and stop killing the things?
Continuing to produce a product no-one is interested in (and that large swathes of the rest of the world would rather you didn't produce) seems stupid to me, especially if they have to divert money from tsunami relief to pay for it.
Is it because of lobbying by the whale fishermen? Concerns from the government about where all the people involved in the industry are gonna get jobs if the industry is shut down? National pride? (i.e. "we have been catching whales for decades, why should we stop now just because someone else tells us to") Something else?
It has become a matter of pride in some (Score:5, Interesting)
The funny thing is that whaling is a western thing but post WW2 the Japanese were encouraged to start whaling to augment their diet. And it sorta stuck. When the article claims "once popular in school meals" what they really mean is: once the only meat in school meals. It is like claiming "levertraan" (fishoil) was popular in Holland... it was given to lots of kids to boost their vitamin intake but it sure as hell wasn't popular.
Whaling in Japan is mostly an issue that most don't care about but for a small group it has become an identity issue. It is the same group who claim mass child rape was essential to the Japanese psyche during WW2. (See Yokohama's mayor recent claims). To most Japanese it is an embarrassment but they have trouble not getting accused of being non-japanese the same as everyone has when they are confronting those wrapping themselves in their nations flag.
You might as well post about the NRA and their antics and ask Americans how they feel about it. You get the same kind of "oh gosh, I am embarrassed but they are waving my flag so if I attack them I am a traitor".
Whale meat = McRib (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I think you've confused her with someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a nationalism thing. Even if no Japanese person would eat a single mouthful of whale, the Japanese nationalists would still want whales hunted solely to stick a finger in the eye of the gaijins.
Re: (Score:2)
Continuing to produce a product no-one is interested in (and that large swathes of the rest of the world would rather you didn't produce) seems stupid to me
Maybe they had some RIAA consultants advising?
Re: (Score:2)
It's because successive Japanese governments have been scared to death that if they give up to the international community on whaling they'll be seen as weak and that nations like China, Russia, and South Korea will be emboldened to go after them over their disputes (such as dispute island ownership).
You also have to look at it from the Japanese mindset, they're a very proud people who really really struggle with admitting fault - this is why a few members of the Japanese government have now said they can't
It kinda boggles the mind, doesn't it? (Score:2)
Hunting whales is at the very least morally questionable. You know, with them being kinda endangered and all that. Now, one could have argued that it's traditional for Japanese to hunt and eat them, and that tradition plays a big role in their culture, so it's kinda hard to get that out of their system and that's why they need to come up with so many reasons to tiptoe around the whaling bans. Ok. We can understand that. I mean, we kill human beings to protect our way of life, so who are we to judge them for
Re: (Score:2)
Just to clarify, if whale meat was plentiful you'd have no problems with hunting whales at all?
Re: (Score:3)
Can't speak for the OP but I dont agree with whale hunting, but only because they are endangered. I like the idea of biodiversity.
Assuming you have already decided you are going to eat meat at all, I personally don't see the difference between hunting whales and any other non-endangered animal (say cows) for that purpose.
From Someone Who's Been in Japan (Score:3)
Once popular in school lunches, younger generations of Japanese rarely, if ever, eat whale."
It was quite never popular to begin with. It tastes awful to begin with, and kids hated it. My wife (a Japanese citizen) finds it like repugnant rubber. It was pushed by the government as school lunches, so it was predominant at once. But predominant does not mean "popular" as this case demonstrates.
To be honest, I cannot remember once single Japanese person I know that has actually said anything positive about whale hunting or whale meat, not even older people (and they do eat some crazy, weird tasting food, like natto). Obviously this is just personal, anecdotal evidence, but still.
Unfortunately political apathy and disenfranchisement being part of the current Japanese ethos prevent actual democratic challenges to the ossified bureocratic structures and interests groups that still fight and rationalize the archaic practice of dishing rubber-shit-tasting whale meat as part of a daily breakfast :/
Spite (Score:3)
As near as I can figure, the Japanese government mostly continues to support the whaling industry out of spite. They keep whaling because other countries try to tell them they aren't allowed to do it.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Quite.
It's delicious with a side of tiger penis and topped with grated rhino horn.
I know it sounds unpalatable, but trust me, it beats the hell out of Fr.3E--+1vi1a:grAA.
Re: (Score:2)
We're all out of fresh mammoth I'm afraid, but I'm sure that the chef can dig up some frozen mammoth if that's ok with you.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you...I don't think this will work on the Japanese but it would sure as hell work on the Chinese, opening up a huge new market for whale meat.
From what I've heard whale meat doesn't taste that good. It has the texture of beef and a muted liver taste.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is about the stupidest, most idiotic comparison I've ever seen. Congratulations, you fail at the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much a "mess" as a "no man's land". Essentially the territory in question is seas in the middle of nowhere and under no jurisdiction. Australia claims that having its EEZ gives it jurisdiction, claim so dubious that no one takes it seriously.
It's basically Japan vs Australia measuring who has the biggest and fastest ships. Or dicks.
Re: (Score:3)
I ate whale meat some 12 years ago. I remember a heavy nutty/liver taste to it. Other than that, pretty similar to a very dense steak.