A question of identity: Should ‘aboriginal’ still define subsistence whaling?

A question of identity: Should ‘aboriginal’ still define subsistence whaling?

The words we use carry significant weight. They shape perceptions, define identities, and influence policies. In international conservation discussions, particularly at forums like the International Whaling Commission (IWC), terminology is more than a matter of semantics—it reflects historical recognition, cultural respect, and political meaning. One term that has recently sparked renewed debate is ‘aboriginal’, used in the context of subsistence whaling. The question being asked is whether this term still accurately reflects today’s subsistence hunts or if it perpetuates outdated ideas.

During the latest IWC meeting, this issue once again came to the forefront. The term ‘Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling’ (ASW) has been embedded in IWC regulations to describe traditional whale hunts carried out by indigenous communities in specific regions. For some, like the United States, the term holds significant importance in protecting cultural practices. The Inupiat and Yupik peoples of Alaska, for instance, are comfortable with the word. The U.S. delegation expressed that this terminology is central to their identity, stating, “this is who we are.” For them, ‘aboriginal’ acknowledges their heritage and secures their right to continue hunts that are both culturally and nutritionally crucial.

However, not all parties share this sentiment. St Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG), also granted ASW quotas, raised a compelling concern. In their view, the term ‘aboriginal’ should be reconsidered and removed. According to SVG, while the hunts they conduct are vital for food security, livelihoods, and cultural traditions, they do not identify as ‘aboriginal’. The delegation emphasised that the term carries connotations of backwardness and incivility, historically imposed on specific groups. By continuing to use this language, they argue, a historical wrong is perpetuated. An NGO representative in the ASW Subcommittee supported this stance, noting that the term was originally designed for a specific group of people, and does not fairly reflect the diverse realities of all whalers under the ASW banner.

The U.S. delegation, however, countered by recalling a previous discussion on this very issue, where it was decided that the term would remain unchanged. They argued that any alteration to such a key term should be approached with great care and respect, particularly for the hunters whose identities are tied to it. They reiterated their openness to a fresh discussion but stressed that it should begin with those most directly affected—the hunters themselves.

The Chair of the Commission agreed that a more thorough discussion would be beneficial, suggesting that it be initiated by the hunters and facilitated by the ASW Subcommittee., which was agreed to. While this debate is not new, it remains a complex issue, touching on identity, history, and the evolving understanding of cultural practices.

The dialogue around terminology is crucial. It highlights the importance of respectful and inclusive language that accurately reflects the experiences and identities of those involved. At the heart of this debate is the need for both recognition and sensitivity—ensuring that terms used in international regulations are not only historically accurate but also representative of the people they affect today. As discussions continue, it’s clear that the words we choose have the power to either perpetuate outdated ideas or pave the way for a more inclusive future.