Of Dolphins and Dinner Menus

Clearance sushi: tuna or dolphin?

I had heard little about The Cove prior to watching it in class; I knew it was a documentary about the killing of dolphins in Japan, but had no idea what the controversy presented in the film was. I expected a grainy, poorly edited film with Japanese sub-titles and gratuitous shots of dolphins being torn apart, stuffed into tuna cans, and shipped off to unsuspecting Westerners.

In reality, The Cove was well produced by experienced documentary film makers, it was obvious that all those who were involved in the film were invested emotionally in ensuring their message was presented with the least bit of ambiguity possible. The message was to bring attention to the dolphin harvesting practices of Japanese fishermen in the town of Taiji where dolphins were being killed for their meat as well as being sold into captivity.

Among the arguments presented, I found the appeal to the dolphins sense of personality to be outrageous. My jaw dropped when Richard O'Berry, esteemed trainer of “Flipper” turned dolphin activist, recounted the day that one of his dolphins, Cathy, allegedly committed suicide in his arms. The implications of such a statement, which he later voiced, was that dolphins were self-aware creatures, much like humans, and on that basis, they should not be killed or “imprisoned”. The flaws in such argumentation are obvious: what standard is O'Berry using to make his moral judgment? Is that standard authoritative, and if it is, are we obligated to follow it? Why has O'Berry chosen dolphins to assign anthropomorphic attributes to as opposed to clams, or even krill? Does O'Berry own or use any products that have animal-part derivatives? His premise breaks down miserably when it is examined further. I can't help but wonder if O'Berrys drive to “liberate” dolphins to the wild is fueled by the guilt of driving Cathy to “suicide”. Perhaps in freeing other dolphins he is, in a way, freeing Cathy, and absolving himself of guilt. If this is the case, one can see why he's so fanatical about dolphin liberation. Aside from O'Berrys appeals to emotion, the film presented another argument; evidence detailing the high levels of mercury found in dolphin meat. I found this argument to be very persuasive; in addition to the medical concerns of consuming tainted meat, Japanese people, according to the film, hadn't been made aware of the dangers of dolphin meat that contained high levels of mercury.

The comparison of the Trojan horse to this movie seems odd at first, but with a little theorizing the similarities emerge- omnivorous viewers that are converted to the belief that killing dolphins is wrong may welcome this film just as the Trojans welcomed the seemingly innocuous horse; when they do so, their meat eating presuppositions are overwhelmed and broken to bits, much like Troy was. The ideology behind this film leaves no room for neutrality, once their premise of dolphin killing as being wrong is accepted, it is a short, slippery slope to full-blown vegetarianism. I can't live in a world like that, I love my steak too much!

There is great tension between the possible Japanese response to The Cove; on one hand, Japanese tradition and culture, at least on the coast, accepts the killing of dolphins as a way of life, just as fishing is an integral part of many coastal communities in the United States. On the other hand, those Japanese in larger cities that were interviewed by cast members of The Cove seemed to have no idea what had been taking place in Taiji. As was mentioned in class, the cultural differences among the world's populations virtually necessitates that the decision on whether or not harvesting dolphin, or any other type of animal, is a choice left up to individuals. Such freedom allows people like me to “have my steak, and eat it too".  And eat it I shall.