Dear Anonymous Australia and everyone else

Well, this really takes the biscuit!

This morning a number of Faroese websites were hacked by some people who call themselves Anonymous Australia in an attempt to harm the Faroese because of their pilot whaling practice. Now these people are threatening to do the same to a number of Faroese people and institutions - here: http://pastebin.com/aaPp5XKK - at least that is how I understand this claim: "To those who support killing whales we only have one thing to say, expect us". Subsequently, they've put up a long list of names (including mine!) whom this warning, allegedly, is addressed to.

Once again I've been named an "advocate" of the pilot whaling...! (The first time was by Capt. Paul Watson on the SSCS site. In fact he called me an "APOSTLE" of whaling....!) My goodness! And thus I'm an enemy of ... well, who? They are anonymous ... and if I get them right, they say that I can count on being the target of their hacker attacks.

I must say, I am completely baffled.

For everyone with an open and non-judgmental mind, who bothers to read what I've really written on this blog and elsewhere about the issue of pilot whaling, it should be totally obvious that I first and foremost have tried to create understanding both ways.

I have advocated for establishing dialogue between those who oppose each other in this matter and not be so judgmental. And I have defended the Faroese against arbitrary attacks.

I have never said that I supported pilot whaling unconditionally. On the contrary. I myself have advocated – mostly in articles written in Faroese to the Faroese public – for stopping the killing, IF it is not possible to continue this tradition on a sustainable and non-commercial basis. I have also urged people to take the health warnings seriously, and asked the Faroese authorities to issue stricter rules in regard to the pilot whale killings.

I have also pointed out, that as long as the health authorities in the Faroe Islands still claim, based on scientific research, that it is within safe limits to eat a certain amount of pilot whale meat and blubber, many Faroese have a hard time understanding why they should stop eating food they have been used to eating for more than a thousand years.

What I'm trying to do is to help outsiders understand the way many Faroese people think about this. The Faroese are not driven to do this because they are "evil" or "bloodthirsty" - or what ever bad things people might call them - not any more so than any other meat eaters and butchers in this world. As long as outsiders believe that the Faroese are somehow only killing pilot whales as some kind of "sick fun" just to be cruel, you will never reach the Faroese and make them understand YOU, because these assumptions about the Faroese are simply not true – and not fair.

You can only win this "war" with reasonable arguments and scientific facts. Only that way you might be able to convince people in the Faroes that you are right. NOT by name-calling, threats, hate-speech, attacks and hacking. All this has been tried for more than 30 years now, and with no result. It will only postpone a solution. It might take some time to reach mutual understanding, but the respectful way is the only way.

This world is insane enough as it is. Please, check your facts, be a good example to the Faroese and let reason prevail.

Ber til at liva stórbýarlív í Føroyum?

Føroyskur samleiki í nýggjum tíðum - 
annar partur av tveimum greinum, skrivaðar í sambandi við ráðstevnu um hvalaveiðu, hildin á Hotel Hafnia 5. juni 2012:

Føroyingar lata seg í stóran mun ávirka av alheimsgerðini og eru farnir at líkjast øllum øðrum vesturlendingum. Summi tykjast eisini hava skund við at taka frástøðu frá tí at vera føroyingur ella frá føroyskari siðvenju. Men hvussu áhugavert er tað, um allir føroyingar gerast meinlíkir øðrum í vesturheiminum á øllum økjum? Er tað hetta, vit ynskja? Hvørjar fylgjur kann alheimsgerðin fáa fyri lív og mentan okkara her á klettunum? Hesar og aðrar spurningar tekur hendan greinin støðu til. 

Eftir Elina Brimheim Heinesen, 24. mai 2012 

Av og á havi eg tosað við fólk um, at hóast oyggjar okkara sjálvandi mugu menna seg við tíðini, so eiga vit kortini at virða tað, sum vit hava arvað frá okkara forfedrum, meira enn vit ofta gera, og varðveita tað, sum vit kunnu av bygdamentanini í Føroyum. Tá eg tosi soleiðis, havi eg kensluna av, at summi halda meg vera afturhaldssinnaða, fyri ikki at siga eina fornaldarleivd. Men kanska er tað júst umvent. Kanska eru tað tey, sum eru bangin fyri at vera øðrvísi.

Spurningurin er, um nógv av tí vísdómi, vit hava fingið frá forfedrum okkara, ikki er nógv skilvísari og veruligari, enn nógv av tí hópmentanini, vit hava fingið t.d. við tí dreymakendu Hollywoodsku mentanarflóðaldu, sum floymir um heimin í dag, og sum eisini føroyingar so glaðbeintir tykjast vilja lata seg gloypa av. Men eg haldi ikki, vit skulu lata alt gamalt fara, bara tí tað er gamalt, og vit noyðast ikki at skifta alt út, sum vit hava, bara fyri at skifta út. Tað eigur at bera til at víðariføra tað gamla á ein nýggjan hátt, so vit ikki missa røturnar, men standa sterk.


Gott at líkjast øllum øðrum? 

Alheimsgerðin merkir, at øll verða ávirkað av tí sama og gerast tí alt meira eins. Alheimsgjørda stórbýarlívið verður hildið at vera so spennandi, tí tað skal eitast fyri at vera so fjølbroytt. Men fjølbroytni er kortini rættiliga avmarkað – og stórt sæð tað sama allastaðni. Ein stórbýur í Asia, ein stórbýur í USA ella ein stórbýur í Evropa eru farnir at líkjast so nógv hvørjum øðrum, at tað næstan kann vera ilt at kenna mun. Nuansur eru sjálvandi, men úrvalið av matstovum er nøkurlunda tað sama í øllum býunum. Tú finnur tær somu kinesisku, indisku, japansku, mexikansku og thailendsku matstovurnar. Tú gongur somu oyðimarkargongd í øllum býunum fyri at finna næstan tað sama avmarkaða úrvalið av undirhaldstilboðum. Fólk ganga í sama úrvali av klæðum, síggja sama úrval av filmum, lurta eftir sama úrvali av tónleiki allastaðni – meira ella minni.

Hóast fólk í nógvum stórbýum kring heimin, sum føroyingar hámeta, hava eitt lutvíst stórt úrval av undirhaldstilboðum, líða nógv stórbýarfólk kortini av keðsemi, strongd og friðloysi, ið tey royna at 'lekja' við enn meira undirhaldi.  Men tað tykist einans at skapa meira kenslu av einsemi, tómleika, týdningarloysi og meiningsloysi. Ikki harvið sagt, at tað ikki ber til at liva eitt gott stórbýarlív, men tað er eingin loyna, at tunglyndi er eitt serliga vanligt fyribrigdi júst í stórbýum. Byggja fólk sítt lív einans á eina grunna, innantóma og óstøðuga hópmentan, tykist hetta føra við sær, at fólk í stóran mun kenna, at tey missa grundfestið og kensluna av felagskapi. Tey missa síni sereyðkenni og sín serliga samleika – og tey leita tí ofta eftir onkrum øðrum at samkenna seg við – okkurt sum er heilt øðrvísi, enn tað, tey kenna til, og sum onkusvegnað kennist ektað og upprunakent.

Fólk fara í dag longur og longur út í ytstu mørk og til heimsins útjaðarar fyri at finna tað, tey sakna. Summi halda seg finna tað her, tí enn tykjast Føroyar at vera nógv øðrvísi enn tað, tey kenna til. Tey síggja Føroyar sum 'eksotiskar' og virða land okkara – ikki fyri tað, ið líkist tí, tey koma frá, men fyri tað, sum tey aldrin hava sæð fyrr, og sum sjálvt fyri tey kennist meira ektað og upprunaligt. Eg havi ikki tal á, hvussu ofta eg havi hoyrt utlendingar siga, at tað er sum at "koma heim", tá tey vitja Føroyar, hóast tey ongantíð hava verið her fyrr.

Men hvussu við føroyingunum sjálvum? Virða vit sjálvi okkara egnu serkenni?


Herma ístaðin fyri at vera egin
Fleiri og fleiri føroyingar – serliga yngri og havnarfólk – eru blivnir meira ella minni "dansk-amerikanarar", mentalt í øllum førum, tí vit verða ávirkað av tí somu amerikaniseraðu hópmentanini, sum floymir yvir heimin gjøgnum sjónvarp, tónleik, internet, spøl og aðrar miðlar. Mong okkara eru í dag nógv meira ávirkað av alheimsgjørdu mentanini, enn vit verða ávirkað av tí mentanini, sum vit sjálvi spruttu úr upprunaliga. Men hvussu gott er tað?

Tað er sjálvandi gott at fáa íblástur av tí fremmanda. Tað elur tolsemi millum fólkasløg. Eg haldi eisini, tað er spennandi t.d. at smakka fremmandan mat, og lati meg sanniliga eisini sjálv ávirka av útlendskari mentan. Eg eri helst millum tey allarmest kosmopolitisku, tá tað kemur til mín egna lívsstíl, og havi í ártíggjundi trivist væl við at liva í stórbýi. Eg haldi eisini, tað er sunt fyri føroyingar í heila tikið at lata seg íblása av tí fremmanda, og at taka tað besta við sær inn í føroyska samfelagið.

Men tað merkir ikki, at eg t.d. ynski, at Havnin skal vera eins og Keypmannahavn, tí tað verður hon kortini ongantíð. Hóast – ella kanska júst tí – at eg havi búð 26 ár av mínum lívi uttanfyri Føroyar, tey flestu í Keypmannahavn, síggi eg eisini virðini í at varðveita í øllum førum nakað av tí gamla, sum enn ger okkum føroyingar til nakað serligt í mun til onnur. Eg síggi onga orsøk til heilt at sleppa nøkrum, sum onnur øvunda okkum, og sum er við til at styrkja sjálvkensluna, skapanarlyndið og eitt innihaldsríkt lív hjá mongum føroyingi – enn í lutvíst stóran mun – bæði so og so. Tvørturímóti.

Onkur heldur kanska: Kom víðari! Hetta er órealistisk nostalgi. Men hví nú tað? Tað serføroyska lyndiseyðkennið finst enn í nógvum føroyingum. Og hetta eyðkennið er ikki meira fornaldarligt, enn vit sjálvi vilja gera tað til. Tann niðurarvaða mentanin anir í okkum og í tí umhvørvi, føroyingar hava skapt her á oyggjunum, men eg óttist fyri, at hon doyr út, um vit hugsa niðursetandi um hana og ikki læra okkara børn at virða hana heldur. Nógvir føroyingar lata seg heldur tøla av tí innantómu, glæsiligu, Hollywoodsku undirhalds- og actionmentanini enn at virða og hjúkla um okkara egnu mentan. Vit eru sostatt ringast at seta fótonglar fyri okkum sjálvi.


Føroyar ikki nakar stórbýur
Misskil meg ikki. Eg sigi ikki, at føroyingar skulu liva sum fyri 50-100 árum síðani. Íblástur uttanífrá er sunnur, sum sagt, menning skal til, og broyting er fín, um hon er til tað betra. Partar av tí menning, sum er farin fram í Føroyum seinastu árini – m.a. at tolsemi er við at vinna meira frama – er at gleðast um. Sjálvandi mugu føroyingar endurnýggja seg í ávísan mun allatíðina.

Men tað merkir tó ikki, at vit skulu taka frástøðu frá øllum føroyskum og taka alt útlendskt til okkum ístaðin – heilt ókritiskt. Ivasamt er, hvussu gott tað veruliga hevði verið fyri trivnaðin á hesum klettum, um vit gjørdu tað. Halda vit, at um vit umskapa Føroyar til nakað, sum líkist einum avriti av øðrum londum, so forðar tað fyri, at tey ungu flyta av landinum? Halda vit, at vit fáa fleiri fólk heimaftur á henda hátt? Hvør sigur, at føroyingar uttanlands tíma at flyta heim til Føroya, bara tí Føroyar eru farnar at líkjast tí, tey hava vant seg við aðrastaðni, um tey eins væl kunnu verða verandi uttanlands, har tey fáa nógv meira av tí sama? Kunnu allir føroyingar yvirhøvur liva í Føroyum, sum um vit livdu í einum og hvørjum øðrum útlendskum stórbýi?

Eg haldi heldur, vit eiga at spyrja okkum sjálvi: Missa vit ikki júst tað burtur, sum ger okkum føroyingar og land okkara serliga spennandi, um vit bara herma eftir øðrum? Ber ikki til at gera føroyska samfelagið dragandi á sín heilt egna hátt? Noyðast vit at vera so óoriginal, at vit bara herma eftir hinum? Hvørki føroyingar ella útlendingar verða drigin at Føroyum, tí Føroyar líkjast øðrum londum. Nei, tey verða drigin hendan vegin, tí Føroyar eru nakað serligt, sum ikki ber til at fáa aðrastaðni. Tað mátti borið til at skapt eitt livandi, frælst, tolsamt, fjølbroytt og opið samfelag, sum er føroyskt – og ikki bara meinlíkt øllum øðrum. Hevði tað ikki verið nógv kulari? Eg spyrji bara.


Er amerikaniserað hópmentan betri
Veruleikin er bara, at summi av okkum vilja næstan ikki kennast við tað føroyska longur, sum ofta fær spjaldrið "gamaldags", "bygdasligt" ella beint fram "fornaldarligt", bara tí tað er føroyskt, sama ger hvat.  Um føroyskt snævurskygni fór í gloymibókina, er tað ikki at gráta um, men tað er so nógv annað, sum er vert at halda fast í. Mong tykjast kortini uttan himpr at lata alt, sum kemur uttanífrá, skumpa tað burtur, sum áður var egið fyri okkum føroyingar.

Alt fleiri eru so við og við farin at kenna seg meir ella minni fremmand fyri tí, sum fyrr var heilt náttúrligt á hesum klettum. Okkara viðurskifti við djór t.d. eru blivin "disneyfiserað" og sentimentaliserað. Fólk hava mist jarðfestið og kunnu ikki dálka hendur sínar við blóði longur. Vit skumpa hesa 'menning' enn meira fram fyri – í navni alheimsgerðarinnar – at laga okkum eftir øðrum londum. T.d. hevur verið roynt at innføra altjóða reglur, sum forða frælsinum hjá einstaklinginum t.d. at selja fisk á kaiini ella slakta ein seyð heima í kjallaranum. Tíbetur hevur tað ikki eydnast – enn.

Er "the American Dream" fyrimyndin, sum nógv okkara eru farin at stremba eftir, veruliga betri, tryggari og haldbærari, enn tað lívið, vit fyrr hava livað her á oyggjunum uppá gott og ónt við og av náttúruni? "Money makes the world go around" í dag. Nú er náttúran ikki ein partur av okkum longur, men er vorðin eitt tilfeingi, sum verður ognartikið av nøkrum fáum, ídnaðargjørt og umsett til pengar, sum síðani skal fíggja ein innfluttan, dýran lívsstíl við innfluttum, dýrum matvanum. Men hvussu leingi, hava vit ráð til ein slíkan lívsstíl? Hvussu haldbært er grundarlagið undir hesum lívsstíli? Tvs. hvussu leingi heldur náttúran til tað? Hvussu ynskiligt er tað at liva so atskild frá náttúruni kring okkum? Og hvussu gott er tað fyri CO2 útlátið, dálkingina og heimin sum heild, at vit liva eitt innflutt lív, fremmandagjørt frá okkara egna nærumhvørvi her mitt úti í Norðuratlantshavinum?


Tann ónda góðskan
Vilja vit heldur liva í eini Disney-kendari dreymaverð, har øll lýðin "fylgja EU-reglum" og eru so fitt og elskulig og professionelt fólkalig, at eingin drepur fitt og elskulig djór longur (í øllum førum ikki, har sum onnur síggja tað)? Og har tað at drepa tey fittu djórini er 'ónt' yvir ein kamb... líkamikið undir hvørjum umstøðum og á hvønn hátt, tey verða avlívað. Ja, hvat skulu vit gera við 'tey óndu', ha? Alt meðan vit lata eyguni aftur fyri, at ídnaður okkara rænir náttúruna og misnýtir djórini uppá tað grovasta handan glæsiligu leiktjøldini. Er tað ein slíkan falskan pyntidukkuheim, sum tey hava so nógva aðrastaðni, vit vilja vera við til at skapa? Hvar hevur hesin svart-hvíti Bambi-mentaliteturin í veruleikanum ført heimin – soleiðis grundarleggandi? Er heimurin blivin reinari og friðaligari av tí? Eru vit øll blivin betri av tí?

Fólk kunnu gerast so "góð" og so sjálvrættvís, at tey sígga ikki sítt egna sjálvrættvísi, og tí altíð halda, at tað eru hini, sum eru tey óndu – og at hetta tí gevur teimum rætt at berjast móti teimum "óndu". Tað óhugnaliga er, at tá menniskjan strembar eftir tí fullkomna, so megnar hon ikki at viðurkenna tað ónda í sær sjálvum, og tað er júst tá, hon veruliga megnar at gera óndar gerðir móti øðrum, kanska heilt uttan at varnast tað sjálv í síni sannførdu sjálvgóðsku. Eins og Sea Shepherd og allir sjálvrættvísir fascistoidir einaræðisharrar heimsins altíð hava gjørt.

Í mínum heimi er tað at lúgva fyri sær sjálvum at halda, at náttúran – eisini náttúran í okkum sjálvum – bara skal vera yang og ikki yin. Náttúran kann ikki vera í javnvág uttan bæði. Eg veit ikki, hvussu góðan hug, eg havi til at liva í tí surreella, glæsiliga, utopiska heimi, sum hesi fólkini tykjast droyma um at gera verðina um til, har menniskjan bert er vorðin hugtikin áskoðari til tað sindrið, sum er eftir av villari náttúru, og ikki partur av henni sjálv. Tí royni eg sum best at verja rætt okkara til enn at hava ein lívsstíl í samljóði við náttúruna, sum eg kenni sum nógv meira veruligan og ektaðan.


At blaka seg sjálvan burtur
Tað at eta fiskin, vit sjálvi fiska, seyðakjøtið av egnum seyði og grindina og spikið, vit sjálvi hava veitt, kann enn vera eitt nógv betri alternativ, enn at fáa sær hópframleiddan mat av verri viðfarnum djórum av handilshyllunum, fullan av íblandingarevnum. Útlendingar flest skilja væl, at vit sum egið fólk hava rætt til at hava valmøguleikar í egnum landi, ikki minst tí mong teirra sakna tað, vit enn hava møguleika til.

Hvussu ofta hoyrast fólk í ídnaðarlondunum tosa íheimliga um "okkara neyt", "okkara seyð" og "okkara kjøt"? Flest fólk í vesturheiminum hava lært at hugsað í smærri køssum heldur enn í heildum, og hava mist kensluna av at hoyra saman við tí, sum matur teirra kemur frá. Og samhaldsfesti – ja, hvat er tað? Men í føroyskari veiðu- og bygdamentan er sambandið millum fólk, djór, plantur, jørðina, vit liva á og luftina, vit í felag anda í okkum, enn til – ella er í øllum førum ikki heilt burtur enn. Enn kemur hesin gamli føroyski hugburðurin næstan av sær sjálvum inn við móðurmjólkini hjá mongum føroyingi.

Tí haldi eg, at tað er syrgiligt, at vit gerast alt meira fremmandagjørd í mun til tað, sum fyrr var náttúrligt og vanligt í Føroyum, og at vit gerast so ávirkað av býarmentanini í vesturheiminum, at partur av okkara unga fólki – umframt fólk í Havn og á stórplássunum – eru til reiðar at blaka alt tað burtur, sum fyrr hevur átt lívið í føroyinginum. Spurningurin er, um fólk gerast eydnusamari av tí – ella um tey ikki bara blaka seg sjálvi burtur.


Ein meira veruleikakend verð
Eftir mínum tykki ber illa til heilt at skilja mátan, vit liva í hesum samfelag, sundur frá mátanum, vit útvega okkum føði. Okkara siðbundna matmentan er enn ein íbúgvandi partur av mentan okkara sum heild – av góðum grundum. Tí tað er enn nógv gjøgnum matmentanina, vit víðariføra virði okkara til nýggju ættarliðini og gamla gagnliga vitan um, hvussu vit bera okkum at við at yvirliva her á klettunum.

Tá vit fara út við ommum, abbum, mammum, pápum, mostrum, fastrum, mammu- og pápabeiggjum okkara at fiska, at reka seyð, at handfara ullina, at dyrka jørðina, at veiða fugl og onnur djór, og at drepa grind, so læra vit heim okkara: føroysku náttúruna at kenna – luftina, luktirnar, vindin, streymin, og hvussu jørðin og havið broytist eftir árstíðunum. Tú lærir, hvat tú kanst fáa tær til matna, til klædna, og hvussu tú kanst liva í javnvág við náttúruna.

Er hetta vert at blaka heilt burtur bara í ótta fyri at vera "bygdasligur" og "gamaldags"? At liva so tætt at – og av náttúruni, hevur verið partur av lívi og mentan okkara her á oyggjunum alla ta tíð, fólk hava búð her – serliga í teim smærru bygdunum, har fólk enn ikki so lætt sleppa at gloyma, hvørjum náttúruumhvørvi, tey eru partur av. Á bygd eru fólk kanska eisini enn lutvíst tætt samanknýtt í mun til á størru plássunum. Tey luta í størri mun mat millum sín og gera hvørjum øðrum sínámillum tænastur uttan krav um gjald. Tey eldru og tey veiku verða vird, t.d. við at fáa part í matinum, sum bygdafólkini útvega til samfelag teirra.

Fólk eru takksom fyri tey djór, sum hava latið lív teirra, so vit menniskju kunnu liva. Fólk fáa eisini nógva heilsugóða kropsvenjing við at heysta teirra egnu føði. Tey fáa ágóðan av øllum teim sosialu aktivitetunum, ið fylgja við at útvega og býta føðina millum sín og hagreiða matin – og alla ta andaligu nøktan, ið eisini fylgir við hesum aktivitetum. Alt hetta fært tú sanniliga ikki, tá tú keypir tær liðugt pakkaðan mat í einum handli.


Mugu virða grundarlag okkara
Vit eru enn fólk í Føroyum, sum síggja virðið í at verja tað, sum eftir er av okkara gomlu bygdamentan. Tað er ígjøgnum gomlu bygdamentanina, at vitanin er varðveidd um, hvussu vit kunnu liva og arbeiða í hesum landi – eisini í smáum, fjarskotnum bygdum – í samljóði við náttúruna og so frælst og óbundið sum gjørligt av dálkandi flutningsskipanum og svikafullum alheims búskaparkervum.

Føroyingar hava sjálvandi gott av íblástri uttanífrá í ávísan mun og kunnu sameina seg við tað, sum hóskar inn í okkara mentan. Vit kunnu krydda lív okkara við at læna eitt sindur burtur av øllum tí góða, sum sjálvandi eisini er til í útlendskari vitan, mentanum og siðvenjum. Vit kunnu bjóða gestum uttanífrá vælkomnum. Og vit kunnu gera lívið makligari við tíðarhóskandi hentleikum. Men líkamikið hvussu vit bera okkum at, verða Føroyar aldrin til eitt annað Keypmannahavn, London ella New York.

So leingi vit liva í einum lítlum, fámentum landi mitt í Norðuratlantshavi, kunnu vit ikki renna undan, at vit mugu liva undir teimum treytum, sum náttúran gevur okkum her. Um vit ikki fara skynsamt við tí náttúru, sum vit í veruleikanum búgva mitt í (hóast onkur helst roynir at billa sær okkurt annað inn), so oyðileggja vit okkara egna lívsgrundarlag. Um vit ikki læra okkara ungu at vera errin av tí, sum vit fyrst og fremst mugu liva av, so kenna tey seg ikki aftur í tí. Hvussu kunnu tey læra at virða grundarlagið, tá ikki ein gang tey vaksnu gera tað sjálvi? Tey ungu missa virðingina fyri náttúruni og missa hugin at vera her. Og fara tey með alla, so verður einki eftir til okkara her í framtíðini.

Forfedrarnir virdu grundarlagið undir lívi okkara og góvu sína vitan víðari um, hvussu hetta grundarlagið kundi viðlíkahaldast. Men nútíðarinnar ættarlið er í ferð við at blaka tær gomlu dygdirnar fyri borð, og síggja ikki, at á tann hátt missa vit eisini grundarlagið undir samleika og lívið okkara í heila tikið her á klettunum. Hin vegin, um vit ikki nútímansgera okkum, so missa vit ungdóm okkara. Vit eru tí noydd onkusvegna at føra virðingina fyri hesum grundarlagi víðari til komandi ættarlið, men á ein hátt, sum hóskar betur inn í nútíðina, og sum tey ungu kunnu samkenna seg við eisini í eini alheimsgjørdari verð. Vit mugu fáa tey ungu at kenna seg heima í Føroyum aftur, hóast tað má vera undir teim treytum, sum oyggjaland okkara setur. Tað er sera týdningarmikið ikki at polarisera og seta mentaninar ov nógv upp móti hvørji aðrari sum mótsetningar. Vit mugu og skulu hava alt til at hóska saman onkusvegna. Annars verður okkum ikki lív lagað framyvir, og oyggjarnar verða avtoftaðar so við og við.

Vit hava enn møguleikan tilvitað at kennast meira við okkum sjálvi sum oyggjabúgvar aftur, varpa ljós á okkara serkenni og gerast errin av tí – ja, ganga fatt og hevja tað serliga fram, heldur enn at drýpa høvur sum útskammaðir hundar, tí vit ikki eru eins og hini. Vit kunnu læra av forfedranna vísdómi, og taka alt tað besta við okkum inn í ein endurnýggjaðan veruleika, lagaðan fyrst og fremst til okkum føroyingar í dag – og ikki til eina tóma ímynd av eini stórbýarmentan, sum í botn og grund aldrin kann blíva okkara fult og heilt kortini. At varðveita teir góðu, gomlu siðir, sum enn eru eftir, er tískil avgjørt ikki "bygdasligt " ella "fornaldarligt" á nakran hátt. Nei, tvørturímóti. Tað er framsíggið. Tað er kul.

Til ber eisini at "'menna" seg sjálvan heilt út av eggini, men eydnast tað okkum at skapa eina menning, har vit fáa fortíð, nútíð og framtíð at ganga upp í eina hægri eind, so vit fáa trivnað aftur á oyggjunum bæði fyri ung og gomul í samljóði við hvønnannan og náttúruna, fer allur heimurin at hávirða okkum fyri lívsvilja og styrki okkara.

Til ber at lesa ta fyrru greinina í hesi røð av tveimum her.

Er grindadrápið vert at varðveita?

Føroyskur samleiki í nýggjum tíðum 

- fyrsti partur av tveimum greinum, skrivaðar í sambandi við, at ráðstevna um hvalaveiðu verður hildin á Hotel Hafnia tann 5. juni 2012:

Hvørjar orsøkir eru til at halda fast við at drepa grind? Kann hetta gerast á burðardyggan, skynsaman hátt, har djórini verða avlívað so humant sum gjørligt? Kann tað gerast við atliti at heilsuni hjá fólki? Kunnu vit etiskt standa inni fyri tí, vit gera? Skaðar henda siðvenja ikki umdømi okkara? Ella kann henda siðvenjan kanska tvørturímóti gera Føroyar til eitt gott fyridømi fyri restina av heiminum? Hesar og aðrar spurningar tekur hendan greinin støðu til.

Eftir Elina Brimheim Heinesen, 24. mai 2012

Ivasamt er, hvussu leingi ber til at verja áskoðanina um, at vit skulu varðveita grindadrápið, tá kanningar vísa, at tað at eta grind kann hava fleiri negativ árin á heilsuna hjá fólki. Niðurstøðurnar um heilsuárinini eru hesar:

• Kyksilvur í grind hevur negativt árin á menningina av nervalagnum hjá fostrum.
• Kyksilvurárinið sæst enn í ungdómsárunum hjá somu børnum.
• Kyksilvur í kostinum hjá móðurini ávirkar blóðtrýstið hjá børnunum.
• Dálking í spiki hevur negativt árin á immunverjuna hjá børnum, soleiðis at børnini ikki taka so væl ímóti vaccinum.
• Dálking í grind tykist at økja vandan fyri at fáa Parkinson sjúku hjá teimum, sum ofta eta grind og spik.
• Vandin økist fyri, at vaksin, sum eru fyri størri kyksilvurárini, fáa høgt blóðtrýst og æðrakálking.
• Fólk í 70'árunum við typu 2 diabetes tykjast hava størri miðsavnan av PCB í kroppinum, serliga um tey hava etið nógvan siðbundnan mat í barna- og ungdómsárunum. Samanhangur tykist sostatt vera millum typu 2 diabetes og dálking í matinum. 

Tí siga heilsufrøðiligu myndugleikarnir, at tað er betri at vera fyrivarin enn eftirsnarin og tilmæla tí fólki at minka munandi um nýtsluna. Pál Weihe og Høgni Debess Joensen, landslækni, hava tilmælt, at føroyingar heilt eiga at gevast við at eta grind og spik. (Til ber at at lesa meira um árinini í hesum ritið: http://setur.fo/fileadmin/user_upload/NVD/Horaldur/Workshop_Report.pdf).

Eg haldi, at føroyingar eiga at taka hesi tilmæli í álvara, og eg vil tí ikki viðmæla, at børn, yngri kvinnur og barnakonur eta henda kostin. Men eg fari tó ikki so langt sum at siga, at vit heilt skulu banna grindadrápinum, tí eftir mínum tykki, eiga fólk rætt til frælsi sjálvi at gera av, hvat tey vilja eta.

Má kannast til botns
Eg ivist samstundis í, um nógv av tí matinum, sum vit eru farin at eta ístaðin fyri grindina, veruliga er betri fyri heilsuna, ella um hesin matur ikki er minst líka vandamikil. Eg sakni meira vitan og samanberandi kanningar. Árinið eigur at verða kannað enn betri og vitanin breidd út, so fólk vita júst, hvussu skaðiligt tað er at eta so og so nógva grind í mun til annan mat. Fara fleiri vísindaligar kanningar at vísa á, at grind við fullari vissu veruliga er nógv meira vandamikil enn annar matur – eisini í smáum mongdum, so gevist eg sjálv at eta grind og spik við brestin.

Víðgongd hvalaveiðumótstøðufólk hava lyndi til at gera nógv av, tá tey vísa til vísindaligar heilsukanningar sum part av grundgevingunum móti grindadrápi. Tey geva fólki fatan av, at grindamatur er tað reina eitur. Slíkt hóskar jú sum fótur í hosu til teirra dagsskrá. Uttan at undirmeta álvaran av árininum, so er veruleikin, at árinið ikki er heilt so ógvusligt, sum tey vilja vera við. Allar kanningar eru heldur ikki komnar til líka radikalar niðurstøður, sum kanningin hjá Pál Weihe. Vísindin hevur jú eisini víst á heilsugóðu eginleikarnar, sum grind og spik hevur. Og kanska eiga fólk at fáa at vita meira um, at ikki allir partar av grindini eru líka dálkaðir – tað veldst t.d. um kyn og aldur á hvalinum, og hvar av hvalinum, tvøstið er.

Heilsufrøðiliga Starvsstovan hevur enn ikki mælt fólki heilt frá at eta grind og spik. Sjálv óttist eg tí ikki fyri at eta henda mat av og á, um tað er við máta. Í hvussu er, til heilsufrøðiligu myndugleikarnir koma til aðrar niðurstøður.

Grind í mun til grís
Etiski spurningurin um djórapínslu verður ofta drigin fram í kjakinum um grindadráp. Eitt dráp er eitt dráp, og dráp eru ongantíð dámlig, líkamikið hvørji djór verða dripin. Mær hevur ongantíð dámt grindadrápið í sær sjálvum – í øllum førum ikki soleiðis, sum framferðarhátturin var, tá eg var barn, har stungið varð frá hond. Eg skilji væl, at fólk hava rópt tað, sum fór fram tá, "barbariskt".

Eg fegnist tí um, at grindamenn hava sett meira humanar drápshættir í verk, sum vónandi sum skjótast verða einastu loyvdu hættirnir at drepa grind. Eg haldi, at føroyingar mugu prógva, at vit gera alt, sum er menniskjansligt møguligt fyri, at djórini ikki verða óneyðuga pínd. Kunnu vit ikki vísa hetta umhugsni fyri djórunum, haldi eg, vit eiga at gevast við grindadrápinum. Tað skaðar ikki minst umdømi okkara ov nógv ikki at gera tað, og so kunnu eg og onnur, sum alment hava vart hendan siðin, eisini uttanlands, ikki longur verja hann.

Eg haldi tó ikki (longur), at grindadráp okkara á nakran hátt er verri, enn tað, sum fer fram aðrastaðni, har djór í milliónatali verða ald til at vera dripin – eisini grísar, sum verða sagdir at vera líka so klókir sum grindahvalir, um ikki klókari. Hesi djórini verða stúgvað saman á so lítlum plássi sum gjørligt, har tey liva eitt stutt og pínufult lív, ofta undir skelkandi vánaligum umstøðum, og ofta uttan nakrantíð at síggja dagsins ljós. Tey verða fylt við t.d. penicillini og vakstrarhormonum og verða fitað ónátturliga upp við einstáttaðum kosti, sum mong av teimum gerast so sjúk av, at tey ikki eingang megna at ganga inn í skafottið, har tey skulu avlívast. Ofta gongur avlívingin so skjótt fyri seg, at nógv av djórunum ikki eru deyð, áðrenn tey verða skáldað, og skinnið verður skrætt av teimum.

Eg skilji ikki rættiliga, hví summi siga, at tað IKKI gevur meining at samanbera grind við innilæst neyt, grísar og høsnarungar. Sjálv haldi eg, at hesin spurningur er serstakliga viðkomandi, tí hetta hópframleiddað kjøtið er tað alternativið, vit í stóran mun fáa bjóðað ístaðin fyri okkara siðbundna mat – og eg haldi meg hava góðar grundir til at ivast í, um tað, vit keypa í handlinum, veruliga er so nógv betri matur. Fyri mær at síggja er nógv av tí hópframleidda kjøtinum eftir øllum at døma ikki betri – hvørki etiskt ella heilsuligt. Hygg t.d. eftir filmunum um hópframleitt kjøt í USA undir hesi grein.

Tí sigi eg, at tað ikki gevur meining t.d. at vera ímóti ella at banna grind, tí grindin skal eitast fyri at vera dripin inhumant og/ella vera ring fyri heilsuna, um ein ikki eisini er ímóti ella bannar alla aðra ósunna og inhumana kjøtframleiðslu.

Vistfrøðiliga forsvarligt
Sæð frá einum etiskum sjónarmiði, haldi eg, at vit øll hava líka stóra skyldu til at halda okkum til at keypa sunnan, heilsugóðan – vistfrøðiligt framleiddan – mat, soleiðis at vit øll eru við til at tryggja, at djórini, sum vit eta, eru væl viðfarin – og soleiðis at vit øll stuðla matframleiðslu í hesi verð, sum ikki pínir djór, og heldur ikki dálkar og oyðileggur umhvørvið.

At velja at eta lokalan mat av djórum, sum hava livað úti í Guðs fríu náttúru alt lívið og av tí føði, sum er at finna í náttúruni, man helst vera tað mest vistfrøðiliga og minst náttúruoyðileggjandi, vit kunnu velja at gera. Tí haldi eg, at vit skulu royna at varðveita okkara aldargomla siðbundnu mátar at útvega okkum føði uppá á hesum oyggjum – bæði tá tað kemur til fisk og seyð og eisini grind. Grindin skal bara drepast við humanum drápsháttum og ikki í størri mongdum, enn at tað kann gerast á burðardyggum grundarlag, og sjálvandi við atliti at heilsu okkara.

Tá grammleiki kemur uppí
Grindadrápið í sjálvum sær hevur ikki altíð verið líka tespiligt, men alt tað, sum hendir í sambandi við grindina aftaná – so sum mátin, grindin verður býtt millum tey, sum luttaka, og til onnur í nærumhvørvinum, sum treingja – er ein einastandandi og dámlig siðvenja. Hetta at býta fongin út millum fólk er ikki nakað, vit annars uppliva nakra aðrastaðni í pengagrammu ídnaðarverðini. Eg haldi, at tað hevði verið stórt spell, um vit vóru noydd at geva upp hesa sosialu siðvenju, har umsorganin fyri og atlitið at heildini er størri enn atlitið at vinninginum hjá tí einstaka.

Mær dámar tí serstakliga lítið, at pengar eru við at koma inn í siðvenjuna at drepa grind í dag, og at til ber t.d. at keypa tvøst bæði í Miklagarði og aðrastaðni. Í Rótikassanum á Facebook selja fólk kaggar av spiki og turrum tvøsti. Slíkt økir tíverri um vandan fyri, at grammleiki kemur uppí, tá tvøstið og spikið skal býtast eftir drápið, og hetta er ein  óheppin menning, sum eg vænti, kemur okkum aftur um brekkur. Hetta gongur ímóti øllum tí, sum siðurin at drepa grind annars hevur staðið fyri.

Eg haldi ikki, at føroyingar skulu hava loyvi til at drepa fleiri hvalir, enn luttakarar í grindini og nærmasta familja teirra kunnu eta – og so nøkur eldri fólk aftrat í bygdini, sum av góðum grundum ikki sjálvi megna at vera við í grindini. Um fólk halda seg kunna selja nakað burturav sínum parti, so sigur tað nakað um, at fólk hava ov nógva grind um hendi – og tá er ov nógv dripið! Tað er ikki í lagi, og eg haldi, at myndugleikar eiga at stegða hesum ósiði beinanvegin.

Mugu endurskoða reglur
Tey, sum selja grind, eru beinleiðis við til at smíða líkkistuna til grindadrápið, tí slík atferð máar grundarlagið undan einum av teimum allarsterkastu grundgevingunum, vit sum føroyingar hava at verja hesa siðvenju við. Um vit veruliga ynskja at varðveita grindadrápið uttan at vekja ov stóra mótstøðu bæði uttanífrá og innanífrá, haldi eg, at tað er neyðugt at endurskoða verandi regluverk galdandi fyri grindadrápið sum skjótast og íverkseta strangari reglur á summum økjum.

Vit fara ikki í longdini at kunna varðveita siðin at drepa grind, um vit etiskt ikki kunnu standa 100 % inn fyri tí, vit gera – bæði í mun til umheimin og ikki minst í mun til okkara egnu yngru ættarlið, sum vaksa upp í eini nógv meira alheimsgjørdari mentan – og eisini við atliti at øllum teim føroyingunum, sum búgva ella ferðast uttanlands, og sum ofta mugu verja hesa siðvenju fyri útlendingum.

Spurningurin er tí, um til ber at áseta nakrar grundreglur, sum tryggja, at etiska grundstøðið er í lagi. Reglurnar skulu helst vera galdandi í øllum landinum, so tað ikki bert er upp til einstøku sýslumennirnar og grindaformennirnar at meta hvørja ferð, hvussu drápið skal fara fram. T.d. eru her nøkur uppskot:

• at kvotur verða ásettar ár fyri ár – t.d. fyri ymisk øki – og at loyvt verður ikki at drepa fleiri hvalir, enn fólk í økinum kunnu eta, og sum tað er ráðiligt hjá fólki at eta í mun til heilsuna.
• at føroyingar binda seg til at luttaka í altjóða góðkendum kanningum av stovninum, sum verða gjørdar regluliga og títt, so vissa fæst fyri, at grindin sum djóraslag ikki er hótt, og at vit ikki drepa grind, um ivi er um hetta.
• at føroyskir granskarar hava skyldu at stuðla ella luttaka í kanningum av heilsuliga árininum av at eta tvøst og spik, og at fylgt verður væl við í úrslitum av kanningum, eisini aðrastaðni, at atlit verður tikið at úrslitunum, sum hesar kanningar vísa, og at fólk verða væl og virðiliga kunnað um hetta.
• at greiðari avmarkan verður sett á, hvørjar hvalvágir kunnu brúkast í mun til støddina av grindini.
• at tað ikki má ganga meira enn ávís tíð frá, at rákið byrjar, til grindin verður hildin til, so hvalirnir ikki verða óneyðuga strongdir.
• at avmarkan verður sett á, hvør sleppur at luttaka í rakstri og drápi, og at bert roynd fólk hava loyvi at drepa hvalin.
• at tað verður álagt grindamonnum bert at brúka blásturkrókar, tá talan er um at hála livandi hval, meðan hvøssu sóknaronglarnir einans mugu brúkast til at hála longu dripnar hvalir...
• at hvalir bert verða dripnir við mønustingara, sum tryggjar, at hvalirnir verða avlívaðir á so skjótan og so humanan hátt sum gjørligt.
• at einki av fonginum verður blakað burtur, sum á nakran hátt kann brúkast til mannaføði ella annað.
• at alt burturkast frá drápinum verður søkt á djúpum streymasjógvi.
• at tað verður bannað at handilsgera fongin við at selja burtur av pørtunum, fólk fáa tillutað.

Um vit áseta reglur sum hesar, so er siðurin at drepa grind etiskt forsvarligur í allar mátar, og so dugi eg ikki at síggja nakra grund til, at henda siðvenja ikki kann halda fram í langa tíð framyvir. Um ikki, tað ber til, so haldi eg, at føroyingar skjótt ikki hava annað val enn at gevast við at drepa grind.

Grindadráp kann marknaðarføra Føroyar
Fer alt fram á ein 100 % forsvarligan hátt, kundi siðvenjan at drepa grind í roynd og veru verið fyrimyndarlig – og harvið eisini verið við til at gjørt okkum øll errin av at vera føroyingar. Vit kundu marknaðarført Føroyar, sum eitt av teimum serstakliga fáu støðunum í vesturheiminum, sum hevur varðveitt eina aldargamla siðvenju, har fólk útvega sær lokalan, vistfrøðiligan mat á fult burðardyggan og humanan hátt úr villu, ódyrkaðu náttúruni, vit liva mitt í. Hetta er jú matur, ið IKKi skal flytast yvir langar frástøður í dálkandi fraktskipum/fraktflogførum. Og har vit eisini hava varðveitt eina aldargamla, einastandandi siðvenju kring býtið av grindini, ið snýr seg um umsorgan og samhaldsfesti, og sum helst ikki sær sín líka nakrastaðni í vesturheiminum í dag. Tað er nakað, sum eg veit, nógvir útlendingar virða og síggja nógv upp til.

Drepa føroyingar grind undir hesum treytum, haldi eg ikki, vit hava so nógv at óttast fyri í mun til umheimin. Við grundarlag í øllum tí, eg havi sæð og lisið av viðmerkingum nógva staðni, nú Føroyar eru í brennidepilinum orsaka av "Whale Wars – Viking Shores" røðini, so sæst týðiliga, at tað als ikki er allur heimurin, sum er ímóti tí, sum vit gera, eins og hvalaveiðumótstøðufólk vilja vera við. Heldur hevur tað býtt áskoðararnar í tvey – tey, sum eru fyri og tey, sum eru ímóti.

Í mun til, hvussu nógv eru komin til at kenna Føroyar ígjøgnum røðina – og nú hava sæð, hvussu vakurt her er – so eru øll tey, sum eru fyri, helst fleiri enn tey, sum yvirhøvur kendu til Føroyar, áðrenn røðin varð víst á sjónvarpi. So helst er hetta, tá samanum kemur, ein ikki so galin lýsingarherferð fyri Føroyar, sum vit kanska óttaðust.

Søpla vælvild burtur
Men... tann vælvild, vit hava ein tjans fyri at vinna okkum í útheiminum við at halda okkum á etisku síðuni, kann øgiliga skjótt koppa tann skeiva vegin, um vit leggja ov lítið í at betra um framferðarháttin við t.d. ikki at gera álvara av at herða reglurnar, sum skulu tryggja eitt humant dráp, ella um vit loyva hesum nýggju óhepnu, handilsligu siðvenjum framat. At føroyingar eru farnir at keypa og selja grind – hóast tað bert er í lutvíst lítlan mun – er tíverri ein nýggjur ódámligur og gramligur máti at bera seg at, sum er fylgdur við nýggju tíðini. Hetta var ikki gamalt, sum tikið verður til.

Tað tænir okkum ikki væl á nakran hátt at loyva hesi atferð, men tað hevði tænt okkum til miklan sóma, um vit varðveiddu tað besta av tí gamla, og góvust við øllum tí, sum ikki er forsvarligt – etiskt ella av øðrum ávum. Hetta snýr seg í botn og grund um at dyrka ein samleika, føroyingar kunnu vera ernir av, og ikki bara spilla ta góðu siðvenju t.d. at býta fongin sundur millum fólk, ið júst er ein av teimum allarmest dámligu siðvenjum, sum vit higartil hava bygt okkara serføroyska samleika á. Spilla vit tað, so framskunda vit byrjanina til endan av grindadrápinum.

Matmentan og samleiki
Tann samleiki, vit sum fólk hava, hongur saman við, hvussu vit hava yvirlivað á hesum klettum so leingi, og hvat vit eru blivin mett av alla hesa tíð. Tað hevur nakað við at gera, hvussu vit útvega og fáa matin til høldar júst í okkara lítla norðalaga horni av heiminum, hvussu vit býta matin millum okkara, hagreiða og goyma matin og matgera.

Øll mentanin kring matin – til dagligt og til veitslur – hevur sjálvandi havt stóran týdning fyri, hvussu vit hava livað okkara dagliga lív í heila tikið her í hesum landi. Tað sermerkta fyri okkum – tvs. hvat tað merkir at vera føroyingur í mun til at vera dani, amerikanari, italienari ella okkurt annað – hongur nógv saman við hesi matmentanini, eins og matmentan eisini ger í øðrum londum. Eins og "stegt flæsk og persillesovs", frikadellur og livurpostei hevur nógv við at vera dani at gera, ella burgarar og BBQ hevur nógv við at vera amerikanari at gera, ella spaghetti og pizza hevur nógv við at vera italienari at gera, so hevur skerpikjøt, ræstur fiskur og grind og spik rættiliga nógv við tað at vera føroyingur at gera. Hetta eru tjóðarrættir okkara, og tað er ikki bara sum at siga tað at fáa føroyingar at gevast við einum stórum parti av hesi matsiðvenju, tá hon hongur so nógv saman við samleika okkara.

Í næstu greinini fari eg at skriva meira um júst hetta - hvør tann føroyski samleikin er í nýggjum tíðum, og hvat alheimsgerðin merkir fyri nútíðar samleikabygging okkara sum føroyingar. Sí greinina her.

Dokumentarfilmar um hópframleiddan mat
Today's Modern Food: It's not what you think it is - 1. partur:

Today's Modern Food: It's not what you think it is - 2. partur:

Food Inc. 1. partur:

Food Inc. 2 partur:

Food Inc. 3. partur:

Food Inc. 4. partur:

Food Inc. 5. partur:

Food Inc. 6. partur:

Food Inc. 7. partur:

Food Inc. 8. partur:

Food Inc. 9. partur:

Food Inc. 10. partur:


.

If we lose our foods we lose who we are

I was born in the late 50'ies in the Faroe Islands. At that time we pretty much had a subsistence way of life in this remote place on earth with a hostile climate and an environment that humans could never hope to survive in without eating animals. 

In winter, our region is stormy and dark for months on end, and the summer is very short. There are no trees outside sheltered areas in towns and villages and just a few edible plants. And yet, somehow we, the Faroese people, have survived here for more than a thousand years, relying on an intimate knowledge and understanding of our environment for our survival, constantly walking a tightrope between life and death.

In my childhood the Faroese still harvested most of our own food, integrating healthy, wild edibles into our diet. Most of our food supply was right outside our front door, and we used time-tested methods for living off the land and the sea. Our people were unencumbered, only depending on nature’s resources and the skill in our hands. Sudden food cost increases or empty grocery shelves caused by turmoil on the international market were not our biggest concerns. The only uncertainties were the whims of nature.

I remember the foods of my childhood. We ate mostly fish, some sheep meat and quite a lot of whale meat and blubber, served with homegrown potatoes. And afterwards we would have porridge made from homegrown rhubarbs, for instance. Our storage of dry and salted food and our new freezer were filled with fish, sheep meat and whale meat and blubber, my family had provided directly from natures larder. Our dairy products were from local farmers. But the grains, flours and sugar we used for baking bread and cakes were imported. And we only eat vegetables and fruits, if we could afford it. They were very expensive, because they came from far away, so they were luxury foods, we could not have everyday.

Times they are a'changing 
But things changed. Our fishing became industrialized. We got money on our hands. And suddenly we were able to import exotic foods from countries far away, like oranges and bananas. When I was a teenager in the 70'ies, we probably already eat fifty-fifty, half traditional Faroese food, half regular European food. Today the division is more like eighty-twenty, at least for people living in the bigger towns, while people in smaller and less affluent villages still try to reduce food costs by holding on to the old traditional diet.

No one, not even indigenous residents of the northernmost arctic villages on Earth, eats an entirely traditional northern diet anymore. Not even the Eskimos—which include the Inupiat and the Yupiks of Alaska, the Canadian Inuit and Inuvialuit, Inuit Greenlanders, and the Siberian Yupiks––or the Sami people in the northern parts of Norway, Sweden and Finland. They have probably seen more changes in their diet in a lifetime than their ancestors did over thousands of years.(1)

But it's very doubtful whether the modern foods replacing the traditional foods, are any better or healthier. The opposite is more likely. The closer people live to towns and the more access they have to stores and cash-paying jobs, the more likely they are to have westernized their eating. And with westernization comes processed foods and cheap carbohydrates—soda, cookies, chips, pizza, fries and the like. The young and urbanized are increasingly into fast food. So much so that type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other diseases of Western civilization are becoming causes for great concern in our country too.

An inadequate diet? 
Up until the 60'ies the Faroese people mostly subsisted on what they hunted and fished. We were island people exploiting the sea and the little land we had in a sustainable way. The main nutritional challenge was avoiding starvation in late winter if primary meat sources became too scarce or lean. But how did people get along eating so much meat and so few vegetables and fruit? How could such a diet possibly be adequate? This diet hardly makes up the “balanced” diet most other people elsewhere have grown up with. It looks nothing like the mix of grains, fruits, vegetables, meat, eggs, and dairy as seen in conventional food pyramid diagrams.

Still, Faroese people have been quite healthy––healthier than they are today now that modern foods have replaced much of their traditional food. Now, when almost everyone in western societies is on some kind of a fancy diet and nobody seems sure of what to eat to stay healthy, it’s surprising to learn how well northern people like the Faroese did on a high-protein, high-fat diet, even though this diet had little in the way of plant food, not many agricultural products and a few dairy products, and it was also relatively low in carbohydrates.

Well, it seems that there are no essential foods—only essential nutrients. (2) And humans can get those nutrients from diverse sources. One might, for instance, imagine gross vitamin deficiencies arising from a diet very scarce on fresh fruits and vegetables. People in southern climes derive much of their Vitamin A from colorful plant foods, constructing it from pigmented plant precursors called carotenoids (as in carrots). But vitamin A, which is oil soluble, is also plentiful in the oils of cold-water fishes and sea mammals, as well as in the animals’ livers, where fat is processed.

These dietary staples also provide vitamin D, another oil-soluble vitamin needed for bones. Those living in temperate and tropical climates, on the other hand, usually make vitamin D indirectly by exposing skin to strong sun—hardly an option in the long and dark winters in the north.

How to overcome vitamin deficiensies 
As for vitamin C, the source in northern peoples' diet was long a mystery. Most animals can synthesize their own vitamin C, or ascorbic acid, in their livers, but humans are among the exceptions, along with other primates like guinea pigs and bats. If we don’t ingest enough of it, we fall apart from scurvy, a gruesome connective-tissue disease.

In southern climes the people can get ample supplies from orange juice, citrus fruits, and fresh vegetables. But vitamin C oxidizes with time. Getting enough from a ship’s provisions was tricky for people living far away out in the ocean, like the Faroese, or in other not easily accessible northern regions. Scurvy—joint pain, rotting gums, leaky blood vessels, physical and mental degeneration—are known to have plagued European and U.S. expeditions in the arctic area even in the 20th century. However, natives in these arctic and subarctic areas living on fresh fish and meat were free of the disease.

If you have some fresh meat in your diet every day and don’t overcook it, there will be enough vitamin C from that source alone to prevent scurvy. In fact, all it takes to ward off scurvy is a daily dose of 10 milligrams (3). Native foods, like in the Faroes for instance, easily supply those 10 milligrams of scurvy prevention, especially when organ meats are on the menu. As you might guess from its antiscorbutic role, vitamin C is crucial for the synthesis of connective tissue, including the matrix of skin. Wherever collagen’s made, you can expect vitamin C (1). Traditional Faroese practices like freezing or drying meat and fish and frequently eating them raw, conserve vitamin C, which is easily cooked off and lost in food processing, so eating dry fish, sheep or whale meat and blubber is as good as drinking orange juice.

Hunter-gatherer diets like those of the Faroese and other northern groups, as well as other traditional diets based on nomadic herding or subsistence farming are among the older approaches to human eating. Some of these eating plans might seem strange to others—diets centered around milk, meat, and blood among the East African pastoralists, enthusiastic tuber eating by the Quechua living in the High Andes, the staple use of the mongongo nut in the southern African !Kung—but all proved resourceful adaptations to particular eco-niches.

Fat is very important 
No people, though, may have been forced to push the nutritional envelope further than those living at Earth’s frozen extremes. In general, hunter-gatherers tend to eat more animal protein than people do in their standard Western diet, with its reliance on agriculture and carbohydrates derived from grains and starchy plants. Lowest of all in carbohydrate, and highest in combined fat and protein, are the diets of peoples living in the Far North, where they make up for fewer plant foods with extra fish.

The simplest, fastest way to make energy is to convert carbohydrates into glucose, our body’s primary fuel. But if the body is out of carbs, it can burn fat, or if necessary, break down protein. Arctic and subarctic people had plenty of protein but little carbohydrate, so they often relied on fat. Protein can’t be the sole source of energy for humans. (4) Anyone eating a meaty diet that is low in carbohydrates must have fat as well, or else they will weaken over time and eventually die even though they have lots of food, high in protein, but low in carbohydrates and fat.

No discussion about diet these days can avoid the "Atkins diet". You can say that the northern way of eating is the “original Atkins". Just like the diet in the arctic-subarctic area, Atkins is low in carbohydrates and very high in fat. But numerous researchers point out that there are profound differences, though, between the two diets, beginning with the type of meat and fat eaten.

Healthy and unhealthy fats 
Fats have been demonized in modern western cultures. But all fats are not created equal. (5) This lies at the heart of a paradox. In the northern areas, people on a traditional fatty diet don’t die of heart attacks at nearly the same rates as other people in Europe or America. The cardiac death rate is about half as high in the arctic region as it is in the US or in most northern European countries. So what causes that reduced risk? It is intriguing because the arctic-subarctic diet is nothing like the famously heart-healthy Mediterranean diet, with its cornucopia of vegetables, fruits, grains, herbs, spices, olive oil, and red wine.

A key difference is that more than 50 percent of the calories in native foods in the arctic-subarctic areas come from fats. Much more important, the fats come from wild animals or domestic animals living in the wild all year round. Wild-animal fats are different from both farm-animal fats and processed fats. Farm animals, cooped up and stuffed with agricultural grains (carbohydrates) typically have lots of solid, highly saturated fat. Much of the processed food is also riddled with solid fats, or so-called trans fats, such as the reengineered vegetable oils and shortenings cached in baked goods and snacks. A lot of the packaged food on supermarket shelves contains them. So do commercial french fries. (5)

Trans fats are polyunsaturated vegetable oils tricked up to make them more solid at room temperature. Manufacturers do this by hydrogenating the oils—adding extra hydrogen atoms to their molecular structures—which “twists” their shapes. These man-made fats are dangerous, even worse for the heart than saturated fats. They not only lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL, the “good” cholesterol) but they also raise low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL, the “bad” cholesterol) and triglycerides. In the process, trans fats set the stage for heart attacks because they lead to the increase of fatty buildup in artery walls.

Wild animals provide healthier fats 
Wild animals and / or animals that range freely and eat what nature intended have fat that is far more healthful. Less of their fat is saturated, and more of it is in the monounsaturated form (like olive oil). What’s more, cold-water fishes and sea mammals are particularly rich in polyunsaturated fats called n-3 fatty acids or omega-3 fatty acids. These fats appear to benefit the heart and vascular system. But the polyunsaturated fats in most Europeans and Americans’ diets are the omega-6 fatty acids supplied by vegetable oils. By contrast, whale blubber consists of 70 percent monounsaturated fat and close to 30 percent omega-3s. (5)

Omega-3s evidently help raise HDL cholesterol, lower triglycerides, and are known for anticlotting effects. These fatty acids are believed to protect the heart from life-threatening arrhythmias that can lead to sudden cardiac death. And like a “natural aspirin", omega-3 polyunsaturated fats help put a damper on runaway inflammatory processes, which play a part in atherosclerosis, arthritis, diabetes, and other so-called diseases of civilization.

Needless to say, the subsistence diets of the north are not “dieting.” Dieting is the price people pay for too little exercise and too much mass-produced food. Northern diets were a way of life in places too cold for agriculture, where food, whether hunted, fished, or foraged, could not be taken for granted. They were about keeping weight on.

This is not to say that the Faroese or other people in the north were fat: Subsistence living requires exercise—hard physical work. Indeed, among the good reasons for native people to maintain their old way of eating, as far as it’s possible today, is that it provides a hedge against obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.

The real threats to the food chain 
Unfortunately, no place on Earth has escaped the spreading taint of growth and development. The very well-being of the northern food chain is under threat from global warming, land development, and industrial pollutants in the marine environment.

Global warming we don’t seem to have control over. But we could reduce the amount of plastics and other pollutants, we release into nature, and we could, for example, do cleanups of communication cables leaching lead into fish-spawning areas. And we can help communities make informed choices. A young woman of childbearing age may choose not to eat certain foods that concentrate contaminants. As individuals, we do have options. And eating our fish, our sheep and our whale meat and blubber might still be a much better option than pulling something processed that’s full of additives off a store shelf.

Kinship with our food sources
How often do you hear someone living in an industrial society speak familiarly about “our” food animals? How often do people talk of “our pigs” and “our beef.” Most people in the modern world are taught to think in boxes and have lost that sense of kinship with food sources. But in the Faroese hunting and farming village culture the connectivity between humans, animals, plants, the land we live on, and the air we share has not been lost––not yet, at least. It is still ingrained in most Faroese from birth.

Many of our young people and people in bigger towns are quite influenced by western urbanized culture and food habits. They are slowly getting alienated to our old traditions. However, it is still not possible, really, to separate the way many of us still get our food from the way we live in this society as a whole. How we get our traditional food is intrinsic to our culture. It’s how we pass on our values and knowledge to the young. When you go out with your father, mother, aunts and uncles to fish in the sea, to heard the sheep, to gather plants, to hunt birds and other animals or catch whales, you learn to smell the air, watch the wind, understand the way the currents move and know the land. You get to know where to pick which plants and what animals to take.

This way of life has been an integrated part of our culture for so long, and it still is to a degree, especially in the smaller villages, where people share their food with the community. They show respect to their elders and the weak in the society by offering them part of the catch. They give thanks to the animals that gave up their life for their sustenance. They get all the physical activity of harvesting their own food, all the social activity of sharing and preparing it, and all the spiritual aspects as well. You certainly don’t get all that when you buy prepackaged food from a store.

That is why some of us here in the Faroe Islands––and people in the Far North as a whole––are working hard to protect what is left of our old way of life, so that our people can continue to live and work in our remote villages, as independently as possible from polluting transport systems and a fraud-ful modern economic infrastructure. Because if we don’t take care of our food, it won’t be there for us in the future. And if we lose our foods, we lose who we are.

---

This blog post is inspired by the statements of Patricia Cochran, an Inupiat from Northwestern Alaska directing the Alaska Native Science Commission, in an article written by Patricia Gadsby for Discover magazine, October 2004, about "The Inuit Paradox: How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are?" (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=). 


The scientific facts referred to in this post are based on quotes from the same article from the experts below: 

1. Harriet Kuhnlein, director of the Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment at McGill University in Montreal 
2. Harold Draper, a biochemist and expert in Eskimo nutrition 
3. Karen Fediuk, a consulting dietitian and former graduate student of Harriet Kuhnlein’s who did her master’s thesis on vitamin C (http://members.shaw.ca/karen.fediuk/VitaminCintheInuitdiet.pdf) 
4. Loren Cordain, a professor of evolutionary nutrition at Colorado State University at Fort Collins 
5. Eric Dewailly, a professor of preventive medicine at Laval University in Quebec

Why most arguments against pilot whaling fail

People who are against pilot whaling in the Faroe Islands often refer to the following 12 reasons for why pilot whaling should stop. Here is why 10 of them fail to have an impact on the Faroese and why 2 do have an impact, since they are – partially – right. 

1. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because the pilot whales are endangered. 

The pilot whale is one of the most common whale species in the oceans all over the world, especially the long finned pilot whale. Pilot whales are not endangered according to the authorities in this matter. The NAMMCO (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission) is the real authority on all matters regarding the North Atlantic pilot whale. The NAMMCO base their estimation on sightings – and they estimate that the number of long finned pilot whales in the North- and East Atlantic is 780.000, and that’s excluding the West Atlantic, so the number might be, even significantly higher. The ACS (American Cetacean Society) agrees with those numbers and the IUCN also agrees that the pilot whale hunt is, as they say: ‘probably sustainable’. The IWC doesn’t consider itself an authority on small cetaceans, of which the long finned pilot whale is one. So the pilot whale is not on the list of endangered animal species. The Sea Shepherd organization stands alone in its claims that the long finned pilot whale is endangered.

The Faroese have killed pilot whales for at least 1.200 years, so the pilot whales should probably have been extinct by now, if the pilot whaling in the Faroes was a threat to the population as a whole. Since 1584 (that is how long it’s been carefully monitored) the Faroese have killed 850 pilot whales (in later years around 800) on average a year, so that’s a tenth of a percent (0.1%) of the pilot whale population only in the North Atlantic, which is very far from exceeding the pilot whales' reproduction rate at around 2%. There is nothing to indicate that the pilot whale population is in decline. As long as the pilot whale is not endangered, this is not a rational argument. So this is a failed argument.

2. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because the pilot whale slaughter is cruel. 

Most images and videos of pilot whale slaughter on the internet are outdated. It doesn’t happen like that any more. The whales are not being stabbed and hacked to death with spears and hooks. Killing methods have improved a lot, especially since the 1980s. Spears are forbidden, and hooks are now rounded and put into the blowholes of the whales to drag them into a better position for a quick kill. New methods have been developed which have decreased the time to death of each whale to 2-4 seconds. The pilot whale slaughters were without a doubt more violent than necessary years ago, but it’s different today. Besides, it is not possible to hunt and kill wild animals in any ‘pretty’ or non-bloody way. No hunting is pretty and bloodless.

People often claim that comparison to other kinds of animal slaughters is not relevant – it is like comparing oranges and apples, they say. But if you accept all animals as equals when it comes to the right not to be killed in a cruel way – and if there is no reason to believe that pilot whale slaughter, as it is conducted today, is crueler than other accepted ways of slaughtering animals, it IS relevant. Because if the slaughter of pilot whales still is labelled ‘cruel’, then many forms of accepted animal slaughter must also be labelled as ‘cruel’. You can’t demand a ban of the slaughter of pilot whales on these grounds, and then NOT demand a ban of other kinds of animal hunting and slaughter just as ‘cruel’.

Furthermore, it wouldn’t be feasible to ban all animal slaughter and therefore, this is not a rational argument. The banning of all hunting of wild animals would also have incalculable consequences for all the indigenous people in this world, who base their livelihoods on hunting. So this is a failed argument.

 3. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because the slaughter is bloody and gory. 

The killing of animals is bloody. It might look ghastly when the sea turns red during a pilot whale slaughter, but basically it doesn’t make this kind of slaughter much different or worse than the common slaughter of captive animals in slaughter houses. All animals bleed and are emptied of blood when they’re slaughtered. The difference is that slaughter houses have drains that go into underground sewers, but you can’t kill pilot whales in a slaughter house. It must be done in the shallows by a beach, which makes this slaughter seem much bloodier or ‘graphic’ than other kinds of slaughters. Pilot whales are also big animals, so of course there is a lot of blood.

Furthermore, since marine mammals can dive for long periods at a time, there is a lot of oxygen in their blood, which means that their blood is more intensely red than blood in mammals on land. This also contributes to the coloring of the sea. Blood also spreads quickly in water. Just try to put one drop of blood in a glass of water and watch what happens.

It’s not a rational argument to say, the Faroese have to stop killing whales because it is too bloody. This is irrational and a failed argument too.

4. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because such a tradition doesn’t belong to the 21st century. They shouldn’t do this just because it is a tradition. 

People in the Faroe Islands don’t kill pilot whales because it is a tradition. They do it for food, as they’ve always done. But opponents call this practice of getting food ‘a tradition’, because this way of living off of the natural resources of the ocean has been common on these islands for more than 1,200 years. Pilot whale meat and blubber is so common and natural for the Faroese to eat that to them this food is no different than beef or bacon is to people in other countries, where they have a tradition for eating cattle or pig meat. It’s just that you can’t breed pilot whales in the same manner as you can breed cattle or pigs. But why would you want to do that, if there is an abundance of pilot whales around the islands living free their whole life? Why would the Faroese deprive the whales of that privilege and somehow cage them or put them in ocean feed lots?

Who’s to decide what belongs to the 21st century or not? Or which traditions are worth keeping for the Faroese or not? It is definitely not for people outside the Faroe Islands to decide. The right word for this is ethnocentrism. That is: judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own culture. The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to his or her own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and religion. Ethnocentrism is not rational, so again a failed argument.

5. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because it’s appalling that the Faroese people are so insensitive to these poor animals. 

This is a purely emotional, judgmental and also an irrational argument, which also belongs to the category: Ethnocentrism. The Faroese people are not more ‘insensitive’ to animals than other people. If the Faroese are to be labelled ‘insensitive’, every meat-eater in the world must be labelled just as insensitive to the animal he or she eats.

People outside the Faroe Islands tend to forget that they also have ‘insensitive’ butchers in the livestock industry in their own country, whom they do not question in the same way. If you do not question the butchers’ ‘insensitive behavior’ in your own country just as much, this is not a valid argument. It’s not only a failed argument, it is also hypocritical.

6. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because it is not necessary for them to kill pilot whales. They have plenty of other foods they can eat. 

It is not up to others to decide, what is necessary for the Faroese and what is not. This is – again: ethnocentrism and shows a lack of understanding or knowledge of the circumstances in the Faroe Islands.

It is also logically inconsistent. With this logic one could just as well claim that it is not ‘necessary’ to breed cattle or pigs for food. Live stock industry depletes and pollutes the earth to a great extent, and the utilization rate of available land for pasture for the breeding of cattle or pigs, for instance, is much lower compared to the utilization rate by growing vegetables directly for human consumption on the same area. But people still feel they have ‘the right’ to have meat for dinner, even if that – from a rational, holistic perspective – is not beneficial nor very sensible, because it means that there is much less food available for the human population as a whole. Therefore, one could just as well say, it is ‘unnecessary’ or even irrational to eat meat from livestock animals in a world on a fast track towards overpopulation.

The fact that the Faroese have access – and the economical opportunity (to a degree) at the moment – to buy (very expensive) imported foods, is not a valid argument against the Faroese utilizing locally available resources. Unlike people living in warmer climates with lots of flatland and space they can use for breeding and feeding livestock, the Faroe Islands is a very limited, quite mountainous area in the middle of the ocean in one of the stormiest areas in the world with almost no flatland or fertile soil, where you only can grow grass for the sheep to eat, a few potatoes and some rhubarb, as well as farm some salmon in the fjords. It’s still not enough food for the inhabitants, though. Summer season is also very short. (We’re in the beginning of May right now and it has been snowing for a couple of days).

Regardless, it’s still not for others to decide, what the Faroese need or don’t need. So a failed argument again.

7. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because the whales are intelligent.

Measuring intelligence is highly complex, and scientists do not agree on how to precisely measure intelligence, even when it comes to people.

Sea Shepherd founder Capt. Watson claims that it is a sign of highly developed intelligence that the whales have figured out how to live in harmony with nature, unlike us humans, so therefore they are more intelligent than people. Okay, if that is his logic, he could just as well claim a squirrel is more intelligent than humans. A squirrel also lives in harmony with nature, and nobody would say that a squirrel is more intelligent than a human being for that reason. Capt. Watson is just being manipulative.

There is no doubt that bottle-nosed dolphins are some of the most intelligent creatures in the animal kingdom. Dolphins are good at learning tricks, especially in captivity – also pilot whales to a degree. Dolphins are proven more intelligent than most other animals, but they are still very far from being as intelligent as people. And not all whales rank that high. The pilot whale is in the dolphin family, but pilot whales are not the most intelligent of the dolphins. Pilot whales are not especially intelligent in comparison to many other mammals either. Other animal species that humans kill for food are also proven highly ‘intelligent’. So this argument is inconsistent, if those who claim it is wrong to kill pilot whales because of their intelligence do not also oppose the killing of other intelligent animals for food.

Whether humans should refrain from killing “intelligent” animals or not is a matter of opinion. And there is no rational reason for claiming that one opinion is morally more right than the other. So again a failed argument. (See also under 9. here below).

8. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because the whales are sentient and sociable.

Yes, pilot whales are sentient and sociable, that is true. And so are all other animals too, more or less. Animals, most people in the world eat – like cows and pigs, even chickens – are also sentient and sociable. So you can’t on the one hand say that the Faroese shouldn’t kill whales on these grounds, and at the same time accept the killing of other sentient and sociable animals.

If you are against the killing of animals because they are sentient and sociable, you are inconsistent if you don’t include all animals in the equation – that is: you must also oppose the killing of cattle, pigs and chickens, yes, any animal in fact. That is unrealistic. So… failed argument.

9. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because they kill entire pods. Whales have strong ties to their group and killing entire pods is the same as wiping out a whole culture. 

If that is so, then it would have been even more cruel to kill half of the pod and let the other half go free. The whales have strong ties to their group, yes, but to claim that the whales have a culture – and by killing an entire pod, you wipe out a whole culture – is quite far-fetched, and just another one of Capt. Watson’s manipulative claims, manufactured to affect people emotionally who have a tendency to romanticize these “gentle giants” – as if they are some kind of ‘human beings of the sea’. But this is belief – not a fact.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that pilot whales develop any kind of advanced cultures like human beings. They are sociable animals and they communicate with each other, yes, and they might act friendly to people, but so do dogs and pigs for the most part as well. On these grounds you could just as well say these animals have some kind of ‘culture’ too. It doesn’t make the whale any more special than dogs or pigs, for instance, or many other animals.

Whales are wild animals and there are examples of whales attacking people unprovoked, also pilot whales, even though they mostly let humans in peace, probably because humans are not interesting as prey for them. Whales are carnivores. They kill and eat other animal species. In other words, they are nothing special. They are not good, they are not bad. They are just animals, even though they might be fascinating in some ways, because they’re so big and relatively intelligent too – as far as animals are concerned.

Some people, who feel saddened by the alarming development in our ailing world as a whole, just seem to have a strong need for turning the whales into something special: A symbol of something more innocent and more pure than us humans. These people seem to project their hopes for a better world into these animals and thus, they elevate them into something they’re not. Consequently, everyone who kills these animals must therefore ‘commit an evil act’ destroying the best things in this world, and therefore should be strongly opposed. This is romantic, but not rational. So this is also a failed argument.

10. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because, despite of what the Faroese claim, the whaling is commercial. There is evidence that shows that you can buy whale meat in supermarkets and in restaurants. 

It is true that one sometimes can buy pilot whale meat and blubber in a supermarket or in a restaurant – in small amounts, but this is not evidence that the pilot whaling is done for commercial purposes. It’s not – and it won’t be in the future either. The pilot whale catch is distributed for free among those assisting in catching the whales and the local village communities in the area, as well as to hospitals, elderly homes and orphanages in the nearby areas.

Sometimes, in small villages with not many inhabitants, there might be a surplus which might end up on the shelfs in a supermarket or in a restaurant in Tórshavn, the capital, but this could never become big business, because – as already stated – the vast majority of the people who want whale meat and blubber can get it for free, so there is no reason for them to go into the supermarket and buy it.

A few restaurants and hotels offer pilot whale meat and blubber to tourists during the summer season, because, of course, there are tourists curious enough to taste the Faroese national dish, but this is done on a very small scale, and could never become a big business. So again, pilot whaling is not done for commercial purposes. It doesn’t and wouldn’t pay in any way. So this argument fails.

11. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because this tradition damages the image of their country in the outside world. 

This is partially right. At least it might very well hurt the image some people have of the Faroe Islands and the Faroese people (if they have any image of the islands and their people, that is). It depends, though, on their worldview – and especially their view on whales. It seems that many people, who consider whales to be very special creatures, find it very disturbing and even ‘sick’ that the Faroese kill pilot whales. Based on the thousands of protesting letters the Faroese authorities receive every year, it is obvious that the majority of the protesters are city-dwellers and/or children – not people living directly in nature and off of nature’s larder.

The fact is that the Faroese also get significant support from many people around the world, mainly people who live in parts of the world where they also hunt animals for food. These people have a worldview similar to the Faroese and understand the circumstances in the Faroe Islands. It is also a fact that tourists visiting the islands are curious to taste pilot whale meat and blubber, which is why it is offered usually as a starter on the menu in the summer season in a few restaurants in the Faroe Islands. It wouldn’t seem that these tourists are opposed to pilot whaling.

Though the anti-whaling activists would want everyone to believe that “the whole world” is against pilot whaling in the Faroe Islands, there is reason to believe that the majority is quite indifferent and hasn’t taken a stand on this question. Anti-whaling activists have for many years endorsed that the Faroe Islands should be boycotted by the international community as long as they kill pilot whales. But they have never succeeded in getting any real support for these efforts.

It seems that the series “Whale Wars – Viking Shores” aired in the USA for the time being, which deals with the Sea Shepherd Organization’s interference with the pilot whaling in the Faroe Islands, has divided the viewers. It’s likely that many take the anti-whaling activists side, but judging from all the comments, for instance, on YouTube and Facebook, it seems that just as many take the Faroese side. Among other things the series has revealed natures stunning beauty in the Faroe Islands, and also that the Faroese have a very strong culture. Many of the commentators declare that now that they have had an impression of how it is in the Faroe Islands, these beautiful islands have become one of those places they feel they must visit at least once before they die. So after all, this series might turn out to be an effective advertisement for the Faroe Islands for a lot of people around the world, who never knew this place existed before they saw the series.

12. The Faroese should stop killing pilot whales because pilot whale meat and blubber are contaminated and it is dangerous for the Faroese people’s health to eat it. 

Of all the allegations mentioned above, only this last one is truly a valid point seen from a rational point of view, even though the health dangers are kind of exaggerated. But it does not change the fact that it is still up to the Faroese to decide for themselves, whether they want to eat contaminated food or not.

The Faroese will likely stop the pilot whaling gradually over the coming years, because pilot whale meat and blubber does contain mercury/methyl mercury at levels considered too high. Pilot whales also contain other toxins coming from man-made pollution, like PCB and DTD. And there are indications that exposure to some of these contaminants may affect human fetuses and their development. This fact is absolutely relevant and the majority of the Faroese people recognize this. But the anti-whaling activists often exaggerate the effects of this contamination, which are more subtle than they let people believe. There has, for instance, not been one single reported fatality due to eating pilot whale meat and blubber, not ever.

As was first demonstrated with lead, and then with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and methyl mercury, exposures in early life to neurotoxic chemicals can interfere with brain development and produce long-lasting detrimental effects on cognition and behavior. A new generation of chemicals termed endocrine disruptors – among them phthalates, bisphenol A, and certain pesticides – which can alter the availability and actions of endogenous hormones, is suspected of being capable of interfering with early brain development. It is hypothesized that certain chemical exposures in early life, perhaps acting in concert with genetic and social factors, may impact the prevalence of developmental disabilities across the population, and account in part for the apparent population-wide increases in neurodevelopmental abnormalities observed over recent years.

As stated, these are indications – not finally proven conclusions, but it is, of course, still very important to study this further, and take precautions.

The long-term intakes of total mercury, methyl mercury and cadmium from eating pilot whale in the Faroe Islands have been estimated. The long-term intakes of both total and methyl mercury exceed the Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intakes (PTWI) recommended by WHO. For the general population the PTWI’s are 300 and 200 μg mercury per person per week for total and methyl mercury, respectively. The calculated intake of methyl mercury approaches the lower value (1200 μg/person/week) of the recognized critical level of methyl mercury intoxication in the general population.

It is therefore concluded in several studies that the general Faroe Islands population should significantly restrict the consumption of pilot whale foods. One study (Dr. Pál Weihe’s) concludes the Faroese should totally refrain from it. The Faroese health authorities have looked into this study and also looked at other studies, and what they have come to is not as radical. They recommend that pregnant women, or women who plan on being pregnant, should not eat pilot whale foods at all, as the critical levels for methyl mercury intoxication of pregnant women and fetuses are lower by a factor of 2–5 than for the general population. They do not recommend that pilot whale meat and blubber should be served to younger children, while it seems to be within safe limits for the rest of the population to eat pilot whale meat and blubber once to twice a month.

The Faroese people are not indifferent to this unfortunate development. People are taking action personally – many do not serve pilot whale meat and blubber to their children any longer, and most younger women as well as child-bearing women choose not to eat pilot whale meat and blubber at all. The local authorities in the different whaling districts are making efforts to restrict pilot whaling even more than it was before, making sure that those involved don’t kill more whales than people can eat. The local village whaling associations who manage the catching of the whales agree with these restrictions, because they accept what science has shown.

But as long as the health authorities haven’t recommended that the Faroese population as a whole completely refrain from eating pilot whale meat and blubber (which, by the way, is the Faroese national dish), and, as long as pilot whaling is done in a responsible, sustainable, care-taking manner, the Faroese see no reason for stopping pilot whaling altogether. And they think that there is absolutely no valid reason for others to interfere in Faroese matters, trying to force the Faroese not to utilize this natural resource in their own country.

Media Whale Warfare

A comment by Elin Brimheim Heinesen to the discussion triggered by the TV series on Animal Planet "Whale Wars - Viking Shores".

I wish this issue was simpler, but it's not. I'm Faroese and I do not condone pilot whale killing in the Faroe Islands unconditionally. I'm absolutely opposed to unnecessary cruelty and the killing of animals just 'for fun' or as part of a 'ritual'. If this really was the case in regard to pilot whaling in the Faroes, I would be against it. I know for a fact it's not. Regardless of what some might claim.

For various unknown reasons some people perceive pilot whale killing as a sport, a celebration or a ritualistic event for the locals in the Faroe Islands. I do not. The purpose of pilot whaling is to put food on the table. People who believe anything else have not really understood or have twisted what Faroe Islanders or others have tried to say about pilot whaling – or they have been misled by people, interested in discrediting this practice.

Pilot whaling in the Faroes is no different – that is: no better, nor worse – than so many other accepted ways of providing meat. I've spoken to many foreigners who have witnessed a pilot whale slaughter. After they've seen it in real life, they aren't opposed to it any more in the same way because they saw with their own eyes, that – in spite of the fact that it wasn't pleasant – it was far from as cruel and dramatic as they had seen it portrayed by biased anti-whaling activists.

Usually a whole pod is killed in a few minutes and each whale is killed within seconds. Of course, it's unpleasant to watch a pilot whale slaughter – just as it would be to visit a common slaughter house for anyone, not used to see such things. Most of us aren't used to see what is going on, when animals are being slaughtered, and react naturally with shock. Watching someone taking the lives of living beings is a harsh reality, we very rarely experience.

Humans are predators
The way we have established ourselves and our communities in the modern world, has led us almost to forget the fact that all meat-eating people are predators. Whether we like it or not, it is the truth. I don't like that fact either. But humans are, and have always been meat-eaters, the vast majority of them. This means that, basically, we're no different than other predators who kill other animal species to have them for food. And that is not pretty.

I'm always shocked when I, for instance, watch a nature program on TV and see a lion catch a zebra and tear it apart – or an orca catch a seal and throw it up in the air before it bites the seal's head of with its sharp teeth. It's brutal and bloody, but I know the lion and the orca don't do this because they're evil. They do it to survive. That's nature, and nature can be gruesome.

Some might say that you can't compare what humans do to animals to what happens in nature, because most humans have 'evolved' (as they call it) and they kill animals more 'humanely' than a lion or an orca does, but to me that's clearly a delusion.

Killing always brutal
No sound and healthy being wishes to die – neither animals nor humans, neither in the wild nor in farm factories. A zebra doesn't want to be eaten by a lion. A seal doesn't want to be eaten by an orca. A whale doesn't want to be killed and eaten by people, neither does a pig. Nobody wants to be killed by anyone else. All living beings want to live and thrive. We might sophisticate our killing methods. But nevertheless, it's still killing. Saying that it is more 'humane' to kill animals in a farm factory slaughter house, corresponds to saying that it was more 'humane' to kill people in gas chambers during the holocaust, rather then, for instance, to hang them or stone them to death.

No matter how we try to bend or twist it – we cannot run away and pretend it is not what it is: It IS brutal to kill animals – any animal, any human – one way or another, regardless of who does the killing – animals or humans – and regardless of how 'humanely' we try to do it. It's still taking another beings life. And ALL animals, including humans, resist to being killed by others.

So I feel sorry for the zebra. I feel sorry for the seal. I also feel sorry for the cows and the pigs. I feel sorry for the chickens and the turkeys. I feel sorry for the sheep, the reindeers, the buffalos. And I feel sorry for the whales. I feel sorry for every single animal on earth that has to sacrifice it's life in order to feed another animal, including us humans. In my fantasies I wish that nobody had to kill any other being and that we all could live just in peace together and love each other. At the same time I know that this is an utterly impossible utopian dream.

A delusional world
The fact is that most people in the world eat meat, which means that people have to kill animals. If humans want to have meat for dinner there must be shed blood. I don't like this fact anymore than most other people who have a heart. I just have to realize that this will be reality as long as people want to enjoy their steaks. Some people also live in barren areas on earth were they have no other choice than to eat meat. And I'm pretty sure this will continue to be reality for a long time to come.

Many people – especially city dwellers who don't live in and directly off nature – seem to have a need to displace these facts, as if they have nothing to do with it, even though they gladly munch burgers themselves. They see themselves as animal lovers and get emotional and sentimental, when they see animals being killed. And they accuse animal killers of being underdeveloped people, who don't live in the 21st century. It's a bad, bad thing they wish would go away. As if they'd like the whole world to turn into some kind of Disney World, where everyone is cute and kind to each other, where animals become almost like humans, and some are even superior to humans.

Even though they love a good steak, most people have likely never been responsible for or been involved in the animal killing process, needed to provide the steak. They probably couldn't stand to kill an animal. Yak! So they must have others do the 'dirty work' for them. And then they can go on pretending the killing doesn't really happen, and that they're really good, innocent 'evolved' people, who never would harm anyone. But no matter what they think or do – deep down they're still predators, responsible for causing pain and death to other earthlings.

These people defend themselves vigorously if anyone tries to tell them that they are in fact kidding themselves if they don't realize that as meat-eaters, basically, they are no better nor worse than, for instance, the Faroese, who kill and eat pilot whales! No, no, no – there's a big difference, they claim. Can't be compared at all. But they can't really explain what the difference is, based on facts, and that's frustrating, so they get angry, point their fingers away from themselves and proclaim the animal killers – or those who defend them – as the only bad guys. But you can't make an unpleasant reality go away by shooting the messenger.

Alienated to the natural
The Faroese fishermen, farmers and hunters don't displace the fact that we as humans prey on other animal species, and they take the full responsibility for that. They do the dirty work. And they are honest about it. They don't – and they have never – hidden from the world what they do. Not even when the world condemns them.

People can claim from now on and forever that the Faroese do what they do for all kinds of unacceptable reasons, but it does not change the fact that the Faroese kill whales for one reason only: to provide food for themselves and the community, just as they've done on these islands for more than a thousand years. The Faroese don't understand why they should stop doing what they do, only because some other people in the world are alienated to something that has been perfectly natural for human beings to do for ever: namely kill animals for food.

Every country on earth kills animals. It's just not common elsewhere to kill exactly this kind of animals. But the Faroese kill pilot whales, because there is an abundance of them around the islands (the pilot whale is not on the endangered animal species list) – and the Faroes are an island nation, dependent on ocean resources.

Decide who's fit for killing
Can anyone make a list of animals, fit for killing, and explain why some animals aren't fit for killing and others are? Where exactly do – or can – you draw the line? Why is it OK to exploit some animals and not others?  Is it because it is a 'tradition' to kill cows, pigs, chickens and so on? And why is it that this 'tradition' is more legitimate than the Faroese 'tradition' of killing pilot whales? What's the actual difference between these animals and a whale?

If the degree of intelligence is the criteria, why is it okay to kill 'stupid' animals? If sociability or sentience is the criteria, well...  mammals in general are very sociable animals, aren't they? And aren't all animals more or less sentient? So shouldn't we stop killing all animals then? Is it even possible to stop the killing of ALL kinds of animals? What about people living in arctic areas where you can't grow vegetables? Why should they have to import all their food from far away, when there are animals, quite fit for eating, walking or swimming right outside their door?

Why is it 'unnecessary' to kill pilot whales, and not 'unnecessary' to kill other animals for food? Who's to decide what people 'need' and what they don't 'need' to eat? Do the Faroese 'need' to buy meat in the store from enormous polluting farm factory slaughter houses, who don't treat animals any less crueler than the Faroese treat the pilot whales? In fact much crueler, because most livestock animals live a miserable life their whole life and have no chance what so ever to escape being killed for food. Why would the Faroese want to buy more expensive food that has to be transported from far away in polluting freight vessels and not want to use the available food resources they get for free in their own environment?

Disproportionate priority
Shouldn't anyone, who thinks it's their business to demand of the Faroese that they should stay away from the meat they are accustomed to eat, not refrain themselves from buying and eating their own traditional meat, unless they can explain the basic difference between the animals they eat and the animals the Faroese eat – and legitimize why it is more okay to kill these animals rather then the animals the Faroese kill? If they can explain that there really is a significant difference, then they might even succeed in convincing the Faroese...!

But if they have no answer to these questions, shouldn't they take a good look in the mirror first – and then try to put their effort and their money first and foremost into some much bigger problems animals face in this world? They could, for instance, try to improve the lives of some of the billions and billions of unfortunate cows, pigs or chickens, living and dying under gruesome and cruel conditions in farm factories all over the world, before they blow the Faroese pilot whaling way out of proportions and spend millions of dollars on trying to save a few hundred pilot whales that only might be killed by the Faroese during the course of a year. Remember, some years the Faroese do not kill a single whale, because the whales don't always migrate right past the islands.

In my opinion it's a waste of the donators' money, because instead of spending so much money on expensive equipment with highly questionable beneficial effects, couldn't all of this money have been used much more effectively and have helped many more animals which are much worse off, if these people really wanted the money to make any real difference?

Just asking...

And again - I do NOT support pilot whaling unconditionally. I just happen to think that people should look in the mirror before they judge the Faroese for what they are doing, because are you yourselves really that different?