Did you hear about this? Is it a dog's nature to attack humans? How bout EAT one? How bout EAT its owner? Most of the comments I read about this story are from people saying that they hope the dogs won't be put to sleep. It's not their fault. Even that the owner got what he deserved.
I'm not so sure pet neglect should be punishable by death but I wasn't feeling sorry for the guy either. I can't cheer for the Philadelphia Eagles even though they have some players that I like. Michael Vick is a ball-hoggin, overrated, dog-abusing, can't pass, glory hound and I won't cheer for a team he plays for. A person who participates in dogfighting is assuming a place of superiority over the beasts that are savagely murdered for his/her pleasure, and by that very action proving that he/she is not superior to the dogs at all.
South Koreans hang dogs up and beat them just before killing them so that the adrenalin softens the meat and makes it taste better. This is the reason that, to my knowledge I never ate any poshintang, (dog stew), while I was in Korea, though it was offered to me a few times. Who are the more evolved creatures in this scenario, the dogs or the Korean people who torture and then eat them? And how many of us wish we could hear a story similar to the Indonesian one coming out of the dog farms of Korea?
Who do I like better, those Indonesian dogs or Michael Vick? No contest. Although I'd be a little nervous that they had developed a taste for human flesh, I'd rather play fetch the frisbee with those two dogs any day than hang with Vick playing, I dunno, throw the kittens into the hot oil. I could see Vick's defence for that, "What? I'm not harming any dogs! Make up your minds, people!"
I don't think it's natural for a dog to eat a human any more than I think it's natural for a human to eat a dog. Most of us will forgive the Indonesian dogs for eating their master because he was a douchebag and they were starving because of him. We generally CAN'T forgive Koreans for continuing to farm their soupdogs in the manner that they do because it's just not necessary. In the old days when they were starving, fine, eat what you can get. That can be forgiven. The torture probably developed after dog meat was eaten as a necessity only further illustrating the point I'm making. And here it is: Starving, torturing and killing dogs = pretty much unforgivable right? Unless there is some demonstrable necessity. And there's no way of proving this, but to me it just seems unnatural.
Now, why is it that every time you debate the necessity of the, (sorry for this), dog-eat-dog business environment of today where HUMANS are bought, sold, starved, tortured and killed, (though usually indirectly), by businesses and governments regularly, some good little capitalist will pipe up and say, "It's human nature."
If you throw two starving dogs a steak they might fight to the death over it. That's natural. If you throw two starving humans a hundred dollar bill, the same might occur. Even that could be called natural although being blessed with intellect the two should be smart enough to keep 50 bucks each. What is completely UN-fucking-natural is when people who are not starving, people who are a LONG way from starving, behave like starving dogs. When companies are paying employees 25 cents an hour to sew footballs or something for 12 hours a day every day, then selling them for 75 bucks apiece, calling it human nature is incredibly tolerant of people to my way of thinking. How much worse are the stories we hear all the time of people being impoverished or killed for business purposes?
Even if it were natural. Even if I could stretch my brain far enough to accomodate such an absurdity, so what? It's natural for people to be naked, right? We're born naked so it only makes sense to be naked all the time. What would the world be like if we did everything that was natural? Imagine everyone naked all the time. You go to visit your parents and they come down the stairs to greet you in the buff. Naked parents! I suppose we could get used to that, no? How about GRANDparents in their birthday suits? (shiver)
There'd be no such thing as flashers so that's a good thing isn't it? Of course I'd kinda miss strippers. Where would we keep car keys and spare change? And what if you didn't have a car and had to take the bus. The 500 previous users of the seat you are about to sit in were buck nekkid! I'd say it's over all a good thing that we don't behave naturally on this count though some nudists disagree.
But back to the point, it's sometimes better to behave unnaturally. If we were totally natural all the time women would be getting clubbed over the head and dragged to bedrooms every Saturday night. Forget the wining and dining. That's just not natural. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.
And what about the Khmers of Cambodia? What about the Inuit? Native North Americans?I imagine there are tribes out there in the world today who have no concept of ownership. These were very successful societies intellectually, artistically, socially, even technologically, (no, people don't just lay around doing nothing without the motivation of money to keep them inventing shit). In Chinese when they were searching for a superlative for rich they used to say, "As rich as Cambodia." These societies ALL knew stuff that we still can't figure out today. Funny thing though, acquisitive, ownership-based societies tend to have highly developed militaries used for forcefully taking other societies's shit. They tend to be more "successful", but are they more developed, more NATURAL? Absolutely not.
In this day and age where there is WAYYY more than enough stuff for everybody to not only survive but be wealthy, people who run their businesses by the inexplicably almost universally tolerated, (and LEGAL), corporate philosophy of "profit at all cost," are cannibals. They're dog-fighters. They are people who are revered but really should be seen in the same light as the dog torturers, or worse. Let's go back a bit and do some word substitution: A person who participates in dog-fighting, (literal or figurative), is assuming a place of superiority over the beasts, (or employees, or customers, or competitors), that are savagely murdered for his/her pleasure, and by that very action proving that he/she is NOT superior to the dogs, (employees, customers, competitors), at all.
In the documentary, "The Corporation," the corporate ideals that are used for business are examined and a psychological evaluation is done as if that business were a person. The result: psychopath. Antisocial and dangerous deviant. About as far away from NATURAL as the East is from the West.
So, call me a socialist if that tired, old retort still gives you comfort. Call me a dreamer, an optimist, even unrealistic. But please don't tell me lying, cheating, stealing, fighting, torturing and killing over the bazillions of dollars in money and resources on the earth is "human nature" and wanting to share it isn't. These aren't the normal people in the world. THESE are.
Least that's what I reckon.
No comments:
Post a Comment