As I logged onto Facebook today I was met with a comment made by an acquaintance of mine posted as her status. It reads as follows (translation):
All those who defend the bullfighting culture would never dare to do a good deed for an animal. They are the typical people who see a dog that has been run over on the road and look the other way instead of stopping to pick them up and giving up their partying lifestyle to pay for his medicine. The people that surround us really are something.
The discussion that followed in the comments was less than civilized and reminded me a lot of the censure brought about by the Ecuadorian government. A girl who called herself a bullfighting fan pointed out that this was an irresponsible generalization as she was someone who had 3 pets (all rescues) which she had given up a lot for. Instead of reflecting on the unfair generalization made in this statement, the one who made it and her supporters proceeded to attack the commenter on her hypocrisy. It made me sad, because the issue that the girl was objecting to (and that I object to) is not the fact that bullfighting is right or wrong but that the logic presented by the person arguing against it is irresponsibly generalizing their opposition and thus hurting their cause. And to post something like this on a public space is bordering on attacking someone for not sharing your point of view. This kind of logic only appeals to those that already agree with it, not those who might be turned to help.
I personally am a free-range vegetarian. I believe in animal rights but I also believe that there isn´t anything wrong with eating an animal in itself. Meat has been a part of our diet since the beginning and there´s also the fact that when we die, our own bodies will be food to other organisms. Circle of life and all of that. I´m also no fan of bullfighting. I spent a good chunk of my adolescent life around Fiestas de Quito trying to understand why the phenomenon is so popular and I think that in the end, I chalked it up to a cultural thing. That being said, institutionalized racism is also part of Latin America´s cultural heritage and I´m not about to let is slide because it is part of that cultural baggage. I´m staunchly against bullfighting but I will never resort to saying that anyone who isn´t is a puppy-killer of sorts.
I don´t respond well to extremist and hateful arguments like the one I saw on Facebook today. And I personally have a lot of issues with the way extremist animal rights activists sacrifice advances in the rights of other groups for their own cause. Case in point: PETA´s I´d rather go naked campaign. The objective behind that campaign is brilliant. The fur industry is cruel and not environmentally sound. It is great that they want to create awareness of that. It is the means through which they attempt to achieve this that are highly questionable - that campaign reinforces problematic cultural standards of beauty and male voyeurism and exploits the female body. Or the release of a worse-dressed list in which a slew of celebrities are called names because of their use of fur. Worst-dressed list? Brilliant. Resorting to calling people names? Being a bully much?
The statement made by my acquaintance isn´t constructive at all and is instead, quite frankly, alienating. I support animal rights, but the end doesn´t justify the means. I was also saddened to see that a lot of the comment writers on that statement resorted to call the girl who didn´t agree names, and to tell her to shut up and not voice her opinion if it was going to be that sort of opinion.
The result of the comment posted and the reactions it got is that I, who had been thinking of showing some support for the organization headed up by my acquaintance, will no longer offer that support. Perhaps it doesn´t matter to them - losing one potential supporter. But that one potential supporter also has a voice and people who listen to it.
Keen to listen to thoughts!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you that this type of rhetoric is counterproductive. But you might want to consider the fact that this person might just be giving her organization a bad name. Should you withhold support from a cause you agree with just because one of their members said something offensive? In fact, even if all their members behave like this one, does that mean you shouldn't support what you believe to be a good cause? It seems to me you are objecting to these people pursuing their agenda on an inappropriately personal level. But isn't withdrawing support for these reasons also taking it to a personal level in a way? In other words, if you believe these animals need and deserve help, is it right not to help them because someone else who wanted to help them was behaving badly? Just a thought, since you solicited such.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell you bring up a good point. The thing is, there are other animal rights organizations that do work that is just as good and just as helpful. I think I would rather support their endeavors than fuel the hatemongering rhetoric this other org is spewing. Luckily, this isn't the only animal rights org in the country. Hehe. That being said, not supporting this org means doing extra research into what the other orgs are doing and choosing one that fits the bill I guess...
ReplyDeleteThe other point about maybe supporting them if their members are participating or endorsing this rhetoric is that I would feel that if I support them I would be implicated in the endorsing of this rhetoric. It becomes complicated because although the cause is good and the work might be good, it is inevitable that this rhetoric will come out can cause some sort of degree of harm that could be counterproductive. There's a conflict of interest. It would be like supporting a pro-environmental protection organization that is funded by an oil company drilling oil deep in the Amazon. The cause is good, but it has its dark side. In the end, it is a value judgment that we have to make individually - if the pros outweigh the cons. I personally would feel that supporting this particular org would do more harm than good given that since the president and founder (which the is the girl that posted the initial comment) firmly believes in this sort of rhetoric, these beliefs may end up in rash and extreme actions that would end up hurting the general cause rather than helping it. i.e. Say they do something stupid like free a bull that is meant for a bullfight. The legal repercussions of such an action could seriously threaten the success of more effective actions such as another group trying to pass a law that bans bullfighting itself.