The intentional ban on hunting whales shoud be lifted

I will define intentional as deliberately done, ban as a Marine Mammal Protection Act, whales as the marine species of mammal, and lifted as repealed or waived. The weighing mechanism for this round is going to be indigenous culture; the judge should vote for the team that best represents the Natives of America's voice within this round, because it allows for an understanding of whaling practices beyond modern Eco-conservatism. The first observation is the Makah Tribe. The Makah Tribe is an group of American Natives who have cultural roots in hunting grey whales as a means of sustenance(Stevens 12). Recently due to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, also known as the MMPA, the tribe's whaling rights have been revoked and several of their members arrested by Coast Guard officials. This act violently silences the voice of the Makah people, because it attempts to whitewash their culture without regarding their input. This sustains colonial violence and sovereign domination that plagues native land by: 1. Revoking a practice that they use to sustain themselves 2. Erasing their culture, despite it being non-violent and eco friendly, more on that later 3. Violently apprehending their people without for seen warning. I isolate two impacts. First is sovereign violence. This whaling ban repeats colonial violence that was present in the trail of tears and the biological warfare that we have harassed Native Americans with. This type of sovreign violence in which we, as outsiders, force our belief onto a non-normative group results in genocide and violence which can be seen in both the natives resistance to Manifest Destiny and the natives resistance to the MMPA. Further more this exact colonialism makes economic exploitation and eco-racism inevitable(Sciullo 8'). This form of violence must be rejected under the weighing mechanism because it makes the Indigenous voice invisible by reaping from them their culture and their belief systems. The second impact we isolate is poverty Makah poverty is high right now due to their inability to whale, however allowing the continuation of their whaling practice would boost their native economy, alleviating poverty(D'Costa 5'). This alleviation of poverty would increase education, allowing for more Native scholars to present the voice of the indigenous people. Thus under the weighing mechanism you have to reject poverty because it subverts the Indigenous voice by taking away their access to education. We can never gain the ability to access the Indigenous mind if we never can hear them. My Second Observation is legalism. Legally the Makah Tribe has the right to whale under the Treaty of Neah Bay(Stevens 12'). Despite their legal ability to hunt whales the MMPA is still being used to justify silencing their voice through violence, for example coast guard arrests, surveillance, and police violence. Thus the MMPA, the ban at hand, is being used to circumvent our legal recognition of Indigenous voice and must be rejected on face for sustaining colonial violence, go ahead and cross apply our impact of eco-racism and economic exploitation from our first observation. My third and final observation is solvency. Firstly repealing the MMPA wouldn't harm the environment due to population resiliency, if the population dips it will rise again(D' Costa 5'). That means their is no reason to take narratives of Eco-apocalyptism to evaluate. Not only that, but only the Makah Tribe is really into hunting whales in the Atlantic and they take a max of twenty whales a year, which means their will be no adverse environmental effects to worry about. And in the Pacific whaling is capitalized on by Japanese which means there will be no room for poachers to get there hands in to the business. Secondly the pro acts on a rhetorical level by attacking the sovereign violence of colonialism by preserving the Indigenous voice. That is key to evaluating this round.