RACHEL CORRIE: A DIFFERENT KIND OF LIBERATOR

Dr. James J. Zogby ©
President
Arab American


A very different kind of American liberator was tragically killed last week, days before the Iraq war began.
Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old student from the state of Washington, was murdered by an Israeli bulldozer driver in Gaza. She was part of a courageous group of activists who have come to Palestine from all over the world to provide non-violent assistance to the Palestinian people.

During the past few years, these peace activists have: placed themselves between Israeli tanks and Palestinian demonstrators; worked to stop Israeli bulldozers from destroying Palestinian homes; and provided eye-witness testimony to Israeli behavior at checkpoints and other human rights violations.

Without any official support and often times ignored even by the international media, this band of civilian liberators has bravely risked their lives to support the Palestinian people's struggle for freedom.

Last week, Rachel, who had taken six months off from her college work to go to Gaza, became the first of these international peace activists to be the victim of what appears to be a cold-blooded murder. The Israeli bulldozers had arrived in Rafah to demolish the home of the Samir family. After a two-hour argument and standoff between Rachel and the vehicle's driver, Rachel sat down refusing to allow the bulldozer to move on the house. The driver drove right over Rachel and then reversed and drove over her again. Her body was crushed and though rescued by her colleagues-she died from massive injuries a short while later.

The story of Rachel spread like a wildfire throughout the United States. Newspapers featured the story and websites of dozens of organizations showed pictures of this young woman's courageous standoff with the machine that ended her life.

Many of these websites have carried Rachel's extensive writings about her experiences in Gaza and her growing understanding of the Palestinian situation. She was an extraordinarily, perceptive young woman and gifted writer. In one of her letters from Gaza she wrote:

February 7

No amount of reading, attendance at conferences, documentary viewing and word of mouth could have prepared me for the reality of the situation here. You just can't imagine it unless you see it - and even then you are always well aware that your experience of it is not at all the reality: what with the difficulties the Israeli army would face if they shot an unarmed US citizen, and with the fact that I have money to buy water when the army destroys wells, and the fact, of course, that I have the option of leaving. Nobody in my family has been shot, driving in their car, by a rocket launcher from a tower at the end of a major street in my hometown. I have a home. I am allowed to go see the ocean. When I leave for school or work I can be relatively certain that there will not be a heavily armed soldier waiting...

February 27

Sometimes the adrenaline acts as an anesthetic for weeks and then in the evening or at night it just hits me again - a little bit of the reality of the situation. I am really scared for the people here. Yesterday, I watched a father lead his two tiny children, holding his hands, out into the sight of tanks and a sniper tower and bulldozers and Jeeps because he thought his house was going to be exploded.

...If any of us had our lives and welfare completely strangled, lived with children in a shrinking place where we knew, because of previous experience, that soldiers and tanks and bulldozers could come for us at any moment and destroy all the greenhouses that we had been cultivating for however long, and did this while some of us were beaten and held captive with 149 other people for several hours - do you think we might try to use somewhat violent means to protect whatever fragments remained? I think about this especially when I see orchards and greenhouses and fruit trees destroyed - just years of care and cultivation. I think about you and how long it takes to make things grow and what a labor of love it is. I really think, in a similar situation, most people would defend themselves as best they could.

...This is what I am seeing here. The assassinations, rocket attacks and shooting of children are atrocities - but in focusing on them I'm terrified of missing their context. The vast majority of people here - even if they had the economic means to escape, even if they actually wanted to give up resisting on their land and just leave (which appears to be maybe the less nefarious of Sharon's possible goals), can't leave. Because they can't even get into Israel to apply for visas, and because their destination countries won't let them in (both our country and Arab countries). So I think when all means of survival is cut off in a pen (Gaza) which people can't get out of, I think that qualifies as genocide.

On March 16, Rachel's pen stopped writing. Her parents in their horror and pain reacted bravely. In a statement they issued after visiting members of Congress who promised to work for an investigation into the cause of their daughter's death they said:

We are speaking out today because of Rachel's fears about the impact of a war with Iraq on the people in the Occupied Territories. She reported to us that her Palestinian friends were afraid that with all eyes on Iraq, the Israeli Defense Forces would escalate activity in the Occupied Territories. Rachel wanted to be in Gaza if that happened.

...In the last six weeks, Rachel became our eyes and ears for Rafah, a city at the southern tip of Gaza. Now that she's no longer there, we are asking members of Congress and, truly, all the world to watch and listen.

...We are asking members of Congress to bring the U.S. government's attention back to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and to recognize that the occupation of the Palestinian territories is an overwhelming and continuous act of collective violence against the Palestinian people.

...Rachel would not want her death to overshadow that of others. In barely glancing at headlines since word came of Rachel's death, I note that many have died this week in the Occupied Territories - one a four-year-old child. I would like to be able to hold the mother of that child and to have her hold me.

Rachel and her parents make me proud to be an American. They represent a uniquely American spirit. Rachel should not be forgotten, as the war with Iraq steals the world's headlines and attention. Many Americans have come together to support Rachel's parents' call to Congress to: provide protection both for international volunteers who are in Palestine to promote human rights and justice and for the Palestinian people as a whole during these difficult times.

We are also calling for a complete investigation into Rachel's murder. Finally, we are working to establish a scholarship in Rachel's name so that her memory and her commitment to human service and liberation lives on.

Washington Watch
March 24, 2003

How the Church of England became the Church of State

A dispute between Henry VIII and the Pope over the legitimacy over divorce led to a new church under the monarch


The Church of England's position as the country's established church dates back to the upheavals of the 16th century Reformation.

The disagreement between the English monarch and the Vatican saw the church gradually emerge out of Henry VIII's dispute with the papacy over his right to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon.

The king used the split from the Catholic church to divorce his fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, too, having seen his second beheaded, and third die.

The monarch became the supreme governor of the state church and its doctrine was officially defined through the 39 Articles in the reign of Henry's daughter, Elizabeth I.

The church's continuing privileged position gives 26 of its bishops seats as a right in the House of Lords, gives institutional rights on state occasions, including the coronation of the sovereign, and protects it through a complex and ancient web of legislation.

Among the historic legacies are such archaic hangovers as the Act of Settlement, preventing the monarch from being – or marrying – a Catholic: a 300 year-old piece of legislation that some bishops still defend to this day.

As part of the modern constitutional tie-in, the church's synod can create legislation determining its affairs. The resulting legislation then has to be approved, but cannot be amended, by parliament.

In return, the Church of England maintains a presence in every parish in the country, runs a network of state-funded schools, claims to be available to all and insists that it speaks on behalf of faith communities on spiritual and religious matters.

It also maintains the upkeep of many of the country's most historic buildings.

Senior church appointments are still nominally made by the sovereign on the advice of the prime minister based on recommendations by the church.

Nominations can be vetoed or altered at the behest of Downing Street.

Critics allege that the church can no longer claim public influence and authority because only about half the population identify themselves as Anglicans, and very few go to church. Unravelling the church's established status would be complex and time-consuming: it took parliament 70 years to disestablish the much smaller church in Wales.


* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

What every couple should read before getting married

Kate Figes has, in the nicest possible way, made a career out of being a nosy parker. For her latest book, Couples: The Truth, she spent three years asking 120 people questions about love, about sex, about who does the washing-up and who pays the mortgage, about children, about infidelity, about living happily, and unhappily ever after.

Awkward questions, asked in the twinkliest way imaginable, are her speciality. (Though sometimes she gets an answer to an entirely different question. 'Many of the men assumed I was referring to their sex lives when I asked them how love had changed through their relationship,' she says.)

And now here is the 52-year-old author – who in the past has delved into other dark corners such as female bullying, and the alienation that can reside at the heart of motherhood – twinkling her way through an interview of her own, in a cosy north London kitchen, with the odd interruption from her GCSE-ridden younger daughter, Grace, and her blind dachshund, Rollo.

'What I was most surprised by when researching the book was, given this notion there is today that marriage is miserable, mundane, troubled, how many people do make it work,' she tells me. 'We are all doing much better than we give ourselves credit for. When you talk to people and listen to their stories most people want to make relationships work. We know in our heart of hearts they are good for us.'

Why then is there so much negativity, fear even, around the topic of modern marriage? 'We like to look at the disasters more than at happiness. Also you only tend to hear about other people's relationships once they have broken down. Very few people want to talk about what is going on inside their marriage. It is like the "glass shade" that EM Forster writes about that cuts off married couples from the world. Which means you have no way of judging whether what you are going through in your own marriage is normal, or abnormal, and what you should do about it. And so then all you ever see are the disasters. And you think, aahhh, divorce is some kind of car crash that is going to happen to you, but you have no real idea how to stop yourself from getting there.'

It seems paradoxical that the more fearful we become about marriage, and its failure, the more expensive our weddings become (now £18,500 on average). Yet Figes believes the two are connected. 'We need to put marriage on to a pedestal, to show that we value it, because we want to believe that love can last a lifetime. And many of us feel that if we spend enough on our wedding then maybe we can beat the odds on divorce. But also we love the traditions of the wedding day – even though many of them are not age-old but 20th century. And we believe that, by buying into these "old" traditions, we are getting married in the right way and increasing the odds on marriage lasting "like it used to".'

Figes, who has herself been happily married to Christoph, a teacher, for more than 20 years, and with whom she has two daughters, identifies the current period as one of almost elemental renegotiation between men and women, particularly in the sphere of cohabitation and parenting. She writes that 'couples are arguing their way, often ferociously, towards a more democratic fairness, compromised by the assumptions they have grown up with about how men and women should be as "husbands" and "wives".'

Yet, as she observes to me now, there remains 'this idea that love will just see you through, that you meet this person and that it is all going to be all right. There is very little discussion. I was surprised by the number of people who don't talk about basic things like whether or not you want children, or where you want to live. There is this notion with relationships that somehow you trust an external force – love, or the institution of marriage, or romance – to keep you together when it is the two of you that have to do it. All I wanted to do with the book was to say to people, "Take responsibility for your relationship."'

But can relationships skills really be learnt? 'If you take a heart disease metaphor we know you shouldn't eat too many saturated fats and that you should exercise to keep healthy, and I think you could say there are similar things in relationships.'

And what are those things? 'A sense of individual self and respect for the other person's sense of self. That is the number one thing, because from there everything else flourishes. The courtesies of daily life – good manners, tolerance, forgiveness, a sense of humour. Then there is the ability to talk when you are unhappy about something before it becomes too entrenched a resentment. To accept imperfections, to be realistic as to what a relationship can offer – not expecting it to make you secure, rich, happy. It can't do all those things – those things have to come from yourself. And finally, when you have difficult times, to learn from them.'

Figes has robust views on 'learning from' infidelity in particular. 'Couples betray each other in all sorts of ways. Why is it that a sexual thing is more of a betrayal than, you know, lying about the fact that you haven't been paying the mortgage? Infidelity is going to be the subject of my next book. Most people have affairs for complex relationship or personal reasons. It is not just necessarily that they are not getting enough sex in their marriage. If you address that then you have a chance to rebuild your relationship on a better footing. I think that from the research – the stuff I am looking at now for the new book – most people who do forgive affairs move on to something better as a result.'

In Couples she refers disapprovingly to how, from the 1970s onwards, agony aunts have become more likely to counsel not forgiving your husband for an affair. 'I think we have become more sanctimonious about it. There is a notion that because marriage is a relationship we perceive as being less stable, because the social sanctions seem fewer, less reliable to us, fidelity has become more of a symbol of trust and commitment.'

Has she experienced infidelity herself? 'No. I have been married for 21 years and, no, I have never wanted to, and so far as I know neither has my husband. But both of us had lots of sex before we got married; we had lots of other partners.' Her own marital challenges have been her struggles with undiagnosed postnatal depression – which prompted her to write Life After Birth – and a period when her husband Christoph was out of work for 18 months, 'a hugely challenging period for us both'.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle was to get married in the first place. Her mother, Eva Figes, the author of the feminist tract Patriarchal Attitudes, divorced her father when Kate was five, and never remarried. 'My parents made all the mistakes that couples made at that time, when divorce was rare. You don't want to enact the same things on your children as were enacted on you.'

She spent much of early adulthood in a series of destructive relationships and, while she says she consciously chose Christoph 'because he was completely unlike the people I'd had relationships with before … someone I could be content with', she only agreed to marriage at his insistence, and 'spent the first 10 years wondering when he was going to leave me'.

(Figes's only sibling, the historian Orlando Figes, was himself recently the subject of a gripping marital melodrama, when his wife stepped in to cover his tracks after he had been posting laudatory comments about his own books online, and derogatory ones about other historians. Figes tells me she can't comment for legal reasons.)

She moves on to one of her favourite themes, the importance of difference, of space, in a relationship. 'There is the idea in this confessional culture that you have to be everything to each other, so therefore we are very confused about where the borderline lies between being totally honest, and holding back. We don't know where that line lies. In fact, it is important to preserve your own separate sense of space. Your partner has no right to know everything in your head. The most successful relationships consist of two autonomous grown-ups who are able to be together, respect each other's autonomy, and be apart, and trust when they are apart that the foundations are still solid. It is a very unromantic notion in a way that you should be these two separate beings but that it is how it is more flexible.'

Figes says that the strongest marital structure is that of a triangle. 'We may be each other's most important person, but that does not mean we do not need anyone else.' That said, she tells me that she was struck, during her research interviews, 'by how many different ways there are of being a couple'.

She is particularly optimistic about the rise of the so-called 'peer marriage', in which the importance attached to work is similar, domestic responsibilities are fairly evenly split – though at 60-40 the woman is still doing the lion's share – and both partners have equal influence over key decisions.

'Research shows that when couples feel more equal, when they are able almost to replace each other, then they are happier. They are more invested in each other's emotional contentment. What's more, the whole stability of a relationship often depends upon how much a man is willing to accept his partner's influence.' So the sensible husband will let his wife get her own way? 'If a man wants to stay with his partner it is in his best interest to listen to what she wants and change. Women are more likely to end a relationship.'

Figes observes that most divorces are triggered by 'disappointment rather than irretrievable breakdown'. She quotes statistics that suggest it takes couples six years to go to counselling for a particular problem, by which time it is usually too late. Figes advises, 'At the first hint of trouble, such as that you are arguing badly, just go to someone who interprets what you are both saying, so you really understand each other.'

Do people give up too readily on marriage? 'There are people who do divorce too easily. It is a bit like moving house – you don't realise what you have lost until you have moved. Shared history and a shared understanding can matter hugely. But then the other side of the coin is that there are people who don't divorce who should. So there is that question of how unhappy do you have to be. Only you can work it out but at least try and go into it with your eyes open.'

Of course we, as a society, are much exercised by our see-sawing rates of marriage and divorce, and what they may say about us. Yet fascinatingly, Figes points out that prior to 1850 it was only the wealthy, prompted by dynastic and inheritance concerns more than anything, who chose to marry. 'Up until the end of the 19th century many more people cohabited in common-law unions than married, just as they are beginning to do today.'

What is more, the average length of the modern marriage – about 13 years – is the same as throughout much of history. According to the historian Lawrence Stone, it was only between 1920 and 1950 – 'when death rates of young adults had dropped precipitously and divorce had not yet taken on a major role' – that the average marriage lasted much longer.

So our collective sense of failure in marriage and personal relationships is based on a historical misapprehension? 'Yes. This has been instilled in us by the 1950s – it is amazing how powerful that decade and its values are. That ethos that we think has been with us for ever – men as the breadwinner, women at home – it wasn't like that in the past. Yet we think that is the norm, and that we are all betraying old values.'

What about the role of children in marriage? 'For my husband's parents, for that generation, the marriage came first and the children were second to it, and it has completely flipped. We now have control over when we have children, so you therefore have to justify that choice. But I also wonder how much we have replaced … your children are for ever … your husband may leave, and you can't trust that love in a marriage will last forever but you can trust that children will, or at least you think you can. I think women do that, they over-invest.'

The fact is, says Figes, that whatever happens to rates of marriage and divorce our commitment as human beings to commitment itself remains undiminished. 'These relationships matter to us as much as they ever did, in terms of support, care, community, love. And this is reflected in the industry of marital guidance and "How To" books. Where we haven't quite yet made the leap is to taking responsibility ourselves for everything, even divorce. People behave so badly: they will give all their money to solicitors rather than sort it out amicably. We have got to be much more grown-up: there is no reason why you can't separate sensibly when it has come to an end, however hurt you may be.'

Endearingly, for Figes herself, endings are the last thing on her mind. 'The thing which for me is incredibly life-affirming, and which I was reminded of through talking to people for the book, is how you have the chance to grow up again. Even if you had bad childhood experiences, as I did, if you go into your relationship with your eyes open you can be reborn, through the stability and nourishment and love that you get.'

Or as she puts it, with moving absolutism, in Couples: 'I can say with complete confidence that an intimate, committed relationship holds the power to heal old hurts.'

'Couples: The Truth' (Virago, £14.99), by Kate Figes, is available from Telegraph Books (books.telegraph.co.uk; 0844 871 1515;) at £12.99 plus £1.25 p&p

Jesus did not die on cross, says scholar?

Jesus may not have died nailed to the cross because there is no evidence that the Romans crucified prisoners two thousand years ago, a scholar has claimed.

The legend of his execution is based on the traditions of the Christian church and artistic illustrations rather than antique texts, according to theologian Gunnar Samuelsson.

He claims the Bible has been misinterpreted as there are no explicit references the use of nails or to crucifixion - only that Jesus bore a "staurus" towards Calvary which is not necessarily a cross but can also mean a "pole".

Mr Samuelsson, who has written a 400-page thesis after studying the original texts, said: "The problem is descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature.

"The sources where you would expect to find support for the established understanding of the event really don't say anything."

The ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew literature from Homer to the first century AD describe an arsenal of suspension punishments but none mention "crosses" or "crucifixion."

Mr Samuelsson, of Gothenburg University, said: "Consequently, the contemporary understanding of crucifixion as a punishment is severely challenged.

"And what's even more challenging is the same can be concluded about the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament doesn't say as much as we'd like to believe."

Any evidence that Jesus was left to die after being nailed to a cross is strikingly sparse - both in the ancient pre-Christian and extra-Biblical literature as well as The Bible.

Mr Samuelsson, a committed Christian himself, admitted his claims are so close to the heart of his faith that it is easy to react emotionally instead of logically.

Mr Samuelsson said the actual execution texts do not describe how Christ was attached to the execution device.

He said: "This is the heart of the problem. The text of the passion narratives is not that exact and information loaded, as we Christians sometimes want it to be."

Mr Samuelsson said: "If you are looking for texts that depict the act of nailing persons to a cross you will not find any beside the Gospels."

A lot of contemporary literature all use the same vague terminology - including the Latin accounts.

Nor does the Latin word crux automatically refer to a cross while patibulum refer to the cross-beam. Both words are used in a wider sense that that.

Mr Samuelsson said: "That a man named Jesus existed in that part of the world and in that time is well-documented. He left a rather good foot-print in the literature of the time.

"I do believe that the mentioned man is the son of God. My suggestion is not that Christians should reject or doubt the biblical text.

"My suggestion is that we should read the text as it is, not as we think it is. We should read on the lines, not between the lines. The text of the Bible is sufficient. We do not need to add anything."

BNN June 27, 2010

The pope and a puzzling African king

By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist | August 4, 2005

It is traditional for newly elected popes to adopt a new coat of arms, displaying heraldic imagery symbolizing their heritage or their attitudes toward the church. It has been widely noted, for instance, that a bishop's hat, or miter, sits atop Pope Benedict XVI's new coat of arms, and not a crown. That is viewed as an expression of the new pope's humility, that he comes not to reign over the church but to continue his work as one of God's servants.

Another prominent feature of the pope's new crest has also attracted attention: the picture of the ''African king" facing left on the coat of arms. For one thing, the portrait is practically a caricature of an African male, with exaggerated lips painted ruby red. ''It's not good," says Holy Cross professor of religious studies Matthew Schmalz, who has written about the crest for the Catholic magazine Commonweal.

There is little doubt why the image of the African king appears on the crest. It symbolizes the Pope's commitment to rallying Catholic worshipers in Africa, the fastest-growing province of the church. (In June, Benedict said he would summon a special synod of African bishops, the first since 1994.) ''For me, [the African king] is an expression of the universality of the Church," the then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his 1998 book ''Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977." He also wrote that he did not know where the African image, which appeared on his coat of arms when he was archbishop of Munich-Freising, came from.

He is not alone. No one really knows who the African king might be. ''It probably strikes people as being really odd," Schmalz says. ''They look at it and think, 'What is going on here?' "

Mario Valdes, a researcher for WGBH's ''Frontline," strongly believes the black king can be one of only two people: Balthazar, one of the three kings from the ''Orient," who brings myrrh to the newborn Jesus Christ; or Prester John, the mythological king of the ''three Indias," or, alternatively, Ethiopia. Prester John, who in some versions of his legend is white, was supposed to have ruled over a land where spiritual and temporal powers coexisted in perfect harmony. Pope Alexander III is said to have written a letter to Prester John in 1177, although the Catholic Encyclopedia casts doubt on this event.

But there are two other possible identities for the unknown Moor. He could be St. Maurice, a Roman commander from Africa whose Christian soldiers refused to sacrifice to the pagan gods after an important victory, and were themselves massacred. (Valdes discounts this, noting that Maurice is usually depicted wearing a centurion's helmet.) And there is a more grisly possibility. At the time of the Crusades, some Christian kings displayed a severed Moor's head on their flags or crests to symbolize victories over their Islamic enemies. It is conceivable that the king, known as the ''Moor of Freising," evolved from such an image, although the figure shown on Benedict's coat of arms is wearing a collar and has suffered no violence. ''It's certainly one of the possibilities," Schmalz says.

'Twas ever thus
In a recent outing, Berkshire Eagle columnist Howard Herman reviewed the first season of the Pittsfield Dukes, the New England Collegiate Baseball League team owned by former Red Sox general manager Dan Duquette. Herman noted that ''Subtract the on-field aspect of the 2005 NECBL season, and the Dukes were a roaring success." The Dukes finished last in their division, with a won-lost record of 11-31.

At the end of his column, Herman includes this quote from NECBL executive vice president Joel Cooney: ''[Duquette's] going through a learning curve in how to recruit players. [The record] is not a direct reflection on the organization. If you give him time, he will definitely turn it around."

Alex Beam is a Globe columnist. His e-dress is beam@globe.com

A lesson in displacement

When an ice cube melts in a glass of water, does the level of the water fall or rise?

Neither. Archimedes' principle states that a body immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. When the ice cube is floating, the buoyant force is equal to the weight of the ice cube, but since the buoyant force is equal to the weight of the water displaced by the submerged portion of the ice cube, the floating ice cube displaces its own weight in water. When the ice cube melts, it turns into its own weight in water, thereby leaving the overall water level unchanged.

Swimming with Dolphins: Green or Not?

When is it not okay to swim with dolphins, and why?

Swim with the Dolphins (SWTD) programs at resorts and get-aways seems like so much fun, right? How neat it is to be able to get in the water and play with these smart, wonderful mammals! So often, it seems like a great, green activity - after all, you're hopping in a lagoon or well-cared-for tank and hanging out with healthy, loved animals. The United States alone has between 14 and 18 SWTD attractions, and the NMFS estimated that in 1990 over 40,000 people swam with captive dolphins in the US, with the number dramatically increasing over recent years.

But there's a few big problems with these programs that take the green shine right off the activity. If you're thinking of adding swimming with dolphins to your vacation itinerary, check out why you may want to reconsider the idea.



1. Harmful and Traumatic Round-Up Techniques


As shown in the documentary "The Cove," dolphins that end up in SWTD programs are often caught under the most horrifying of circumstances. In Japan, tens of thousands of dolphins are rounded up into a small cove. Trainers come to pick out which dolphins they want for various aquatic centers. The dolphins are then rounded up as the other members of their pod are slaughtered. Not all capture techniques are so abusive, but they are all always traumatic for the dolphins, often causing a fatal condition known as capture stress or capture myopathy. According to the World Society for the Protection of Animals, of those dolphins that survive the capture and are brought into captivity, 53% will die within their first 3 months in a tank. Captive breeding programs, on the other hand, avoid the trauma of capture, but often do little to ensure that capture of wild dolphins ends.



2. Unnatural Habitats and Living Situations


Wild dolphins swim upwards of 40 miles a day with their family pods, hunt for their own food, and spend only 20% of their time at the surface of the ocean. On the other hand, captive dolphins swim in circles, are fed fish already caught and killed for them, are no longer part of their family pod - and dolphins are extremely social animals - and spend around 80% of their time at the surface. The environment, no matter how clean, goes against a dolphin's basic instincts and is usually not nearly stimulating enough to keep the animals from suffering stress and boredom.

Additionally, the conditions of aquatic centers where SWTD programs exist are barely regulated in the US, and often not regulated in other countries. From the numbers known, every seven years, at least 50% of all captive dolphins die due to the violence of their capture, intestinal disease, chlorine poisoning and stress-related illness. Even Sea World reports an average of 3 dolphin deaths per year.



3. Ensuring Continued Capture of Wild Dolphins


While some aquatic centers have breeding programs and express the desire to promote dolphin conservation, the fact is dolphins are taken in large numbers from the wild to support SWTD programs. The practice is ultimately inhumane, which is why Brazil, Italy, and the U.K. have banned interactive marine-mammal programs. It may seem like a great green activity while on vacation, but in the larger scheme of ocean and animal health, SWTD programs aren't so eco-friendly.



What You Can Do!

The Humane Society of the United States suggests:

Write or visit SWTD attractions and express your concerns. There are currently almost 400 bottlenose dolphins in captivity in the United States, with many more in facilities around the world, many of whom are used in breeding programs. If these programs are as successful as captive facilities claim, then capture from the wild can and should be eliminated.

Consider bypassing hotels, resorts, and cruise lines that offer SWTD attractions to tourists. Let the facility know that while you would normally have booked your stay with them, you see that they support this un-green activity and are therefore booking elsewhere.

Contact your U.S. senators and representative and tell them to support an amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibiting the capture of marine mammals from the wild for public display during the Act's next re-authorization.

By Jaymi Heimbuch
San Francisco, CA, USA Thu Aug 6, 2009