Introduction note from the Editor

.

Prothero, A., & Fitchett, J.A. (2000). Greening capitalism: Opportunities for green commodity Journal of Macromarketing, (20)1: 46-55.

Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Rohwedder, W., J. (1994). Using computers in environmental education: Interactive multimedia and on-line learning. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Seifert, T.A., Goodman, K.M., Lindsay, N., Jorgensen, J.D., Wolniak, G.C., Pascarella, E.T., & Blaich, C. (2008). The effects of liberal arts experiences on liberal arts outcomes. Research in Higher Education, (49)2: 107-125.

Skolimowski, H. (1991). Ecology, education and the real world. Trumpeter, (8):3: 123 –125.

Stables, A. (2001). Who drew the sky? Conflicting assumptions in environmental education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, (33)2: 245–256.

Stables, A., & Bishop, K. (2001). Weak and strong conceptions of environmental literacy: Implications for environmental education. Environmental Education Research, (7)1: 89-97.

Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental Education Research, (1)2: 195-212.

Van Damme, L.S.M., & Neluvhalani, E.F. (2004). Indigenous knowledge in environmental education processes: Perspectives on a growing research arena. Environmental Education Research, (10)3: 353-370.

Wickenberg, P. (2000). Greening education in Europe. Research report on environmental education, learning for sustainable development and local agenda 21 in Europe. Lund: Editions Lund University.

FILM REVIEW

Psihoyos, L. (Writer). (2009). The Cove. In C. Hambleton, F. Stevens, J. Clark, O. Ahnemann & P. D. Pesemn (Producer). USA: Lions Gate. 92 minutes $14.95 (DVD)

A Review of the Film: “The Cove”

Amber E. George

SUNY Cortland
One of the most powerful and heart-wrenching documentaries of late, The Cove is a vital one to share with anyone concerned about social justice and advocacy. The film has won numerous awards, including Audience Award at the Sundance Film Festival and an Academy Award for best documentary. It tells the story of a group of advocates struggling to reveal the secret slaughter of approximately 23,000 dolphins annually in a small Japanese town Taiji. However, the film isn’t just about saving the dolphins; it’s also about the larger issues of rising mercury levels in the food chain, ecological degradation from overfishing, political corruption and human/environmental health concerns that the Japanese government sanctions. The filmmakers provide ample facts, vignettes, and analysis into the hows and whys of dolphin genocide but never descends into easy preachiness, doing an excellent job of covering both sides of the issue while naturally siding more with the view that Japan’s fishing practices are causing serious problems not only to many populations of marine mammals but to humans too.

The heroes of the film all hail from diverse backgrounds including the director, Louis Psihoyos, a National Geographic photographer and founder of the Oceanic Preservation Society Richard O’Barry, once the leading dolphin trainer in the world, best known for his work on the television show Flipper, and now the leading activist against dolphin captivity; a couple of world-class divers, technical experts borrowed from George Lucas’s studios and a handful of other volunteers all using their skills and talents in the face of danger so that they can show the world video proof of this hidden dolphin slaughter.

The cove is what O’Barry calls “a dolphin’s worst nightmare.” The dolphins' migratory pattern leads them past Taiji where fishermen disrupt their pattern by using sonar, which confuses them into a cul-de-sac where they are trapped in nets. The dolphins are then sorted, with the most desirable dolphins (typically bottlenoses who resemble Flipper) corralled and sold to trainers and sea aquariums all over the world. The rest are pushed into the cove – a section of the beach that is secluded from the public because of its steep cliffs, high fences and razor wire – and are harpooned and slaughtered for their meat. The cove is heavily patrolled and guarded; anyone who ventures near the cove is threatened with violence, intimidation and arrest if caught.

I liked that the film didn’t simply dive into the major issues but carefully eased into the argument against the mistreatment and killing of dolphins. Having been warned about the horrific slaughter scenes in advance, I spent most of the movie on the edge of my seat waiting in suspense. To my surprise, the film included many warm moments, beautiful scenes and imagery that gives the viewer hope and a sense of restitution. The suspense still builds as the crew prepares to go into the secluded cove where the slaughtering takes place.

The film starts out rather peacefully, explaining the grace of dolphins and why they are revered all across the world for their intelligence and performances in sea parks and aquariums. Presumably the dolphins who go into captivity are happy and have been saved from a worse fate—however this presumption is proven wrong through the commentary of former trainer O’Barry. It is through his contributions to the story that the audience comes to understand why the capturing and slaughtering of dolphins is so very wrong.

O’Barry very remorseful that it was his work on Flipper, which also made him rich and famous, that set in motion the craze for capturing and training wild dolphins. He explains that, after working with the dolphins in captivity for many years, he started to realize the dolphins were not happy being performing animals and that they experience depression just as humans do. This change of heart was solidified after Kathy, the main Flipper dolphin, as Barry explains committed suicide in his arms because of how miserable she was in captivity. From then on, O’Barry’s name became synonymous with dolphin activism and he became the strongest advocate for freeing the dolphins. He said, “I was as ignorant as I could be for as long as I could be … I spent 10 years building and the next 35 trying to tear it down.” He has devoted his life to freeing the dolphins and risks his life to try and save Taiji’s dolphins. He says, “If a dolphin is in trouble anywhere in the world, my phone rings.” In the film, he comes across as an exhausted yet fearless leader, determined to make amends for his part in the ongoing dolphin tragedy for the rest of his life.

The viewer senses that the filmmakers sincerely want to understand why the antagonists of the film, the Japanese Government and the fishermen of Taiji, insist that their fishing policies are ethical. The film investigates the cultural-relativist angle, that perhaps the capturing, slaughtering and eating of dolphins is somehow connected to a cultural tradition or spiritual event. Should that be the case, then perhaps what they are doing serves a higher purpose and should be respected on the grounds of tolerance for other cultures and general diversity. To the unsuspecting tourist, the town of Taiji seems to love and admire the dolphin as it's decorated with cute dolphin pictures, statues, and tourist boats. What lurks behind the imagery is a small group of people who are determined to protect the lucrative dolphin industrial complex because it fuels the town’s economy. The majority of Japanese people do not have any special connection with dolphins and do not willingly ingest dolphin meat. In fact, many people in the city of Tokyo whose interviews were included in the film were shocked and appalled to learn about what goes on in Taiji, thus the insistence that the mistreatment of dolphins is somehow connected to their culture and therefore should be respected fails to answer the question of why.

Clearly the philosophy that fuels a lot of what happens in Taiji rests on the ideology of anthropocentrism, the privileging of human interests over all other non-human entities. Some of the comments from Japanese officials make their view clear; dolphins have absolutely no intrinsic value and humans are and should be central or the most significant reality of the universe. The Japanese take on a certain “logic of domination,” whereby they assume that human beings are morally superior and that those who are superior have a right to dominate those who are subordinate. The film does an excellent job demonstrating how dolphins are among the most intelligent of mammals, manipulating their environment through the use of tools and have been observed teaching behavior traits to their offspring. Evidence such as this suggests that dolphins should be endowed with unalienable rights and should be treated as an end in themselves, not merely as a means to an end.

It is interesting to see how politics help fuel the slaughtering of dolphins for their meat. The killing of dolphins is legal because they and other small mammals are not protected under the law that deregulated commercial whaling. Dolphins are not classified as whales, despite the fact that they are both mammals. What is even more disturbing is how the International Whaling Commission, which operates on an international scale with the intent of preventing the slaughter of large nonhuman mammals, actually serves to promote the unethical Japanese fishing practices. The viewer learns that Japan coerces cash-strapped nations into protecting the slaughter of dolphins by offering them monetary rewards if they cast votes favoring Japan’s agenda .

Since the Japanese can’t legally fish whales to the point of extinction, their covert plan seems to focus on fishing dolphins to the point of extinction. Thus, dolphins are slaughtered and their meat is deceptively labeled as whale meat and sold in stores as well as given to Japanese children in their free-lunch programs at school. A number of scientists have run tests that prove dolphin meat contains high levels of mercury that is dangerous to consume. They argue that the catastrophic Minamata incident should serve as a foreshadowing of what is to come if the government doesn’t rise to action against eating dolphin meat. Minamata is a Japanese town where a ruthless Japanese industrial plant dumped mercury into the waterways for years, eventually trickling down the food chain and leading to thousands of deaths, illnesses and life-threatening birth defects. Just as they did with the Minamata incident, the government works hard to keep the mercury poisoning out of the spotlight.

Through this astonishing story we see glimpses into the dark side of humanity and learn many lessons about greed, politics and the nature of animal ethics. What these advocates risk to expose the horrors taking place in Taiji is truly honorable and courageous. There are many scenes that would enrage anyone yet also moments of serenity—and it isn’t just the dolphins that create this effect but the people dedicated to their protection too. The ending provides a great deal of satisfaction as well as a much-needed glimmer of hope that perhaps the wrongs done to the dolphin might possibly be corrected in the near future. The argument supporting the protection of these animals is so convincing that it would be almost impossible to walk away from this film and not feel a personal responsibility to help solve it. We only hope that the film will publicize the problem on a global scale and then hold the Japanese fishing industry accountable for not only wasting of precious dolphin lives but also poisoning of our waterways, nonhuman animals, and our fellow human beings. T he film is so well crafted that it has the potential of creating systems change and improving our world.