Pages

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Death In the Morning

By a vote of 68-55, Catalonia banned bullfighting today. The world just got a little less interesting.

Gone is the Spain of Federico Garcia Lorca and Ernest Hemingway. Gone are the days when bullfighters were as famous as footballers. Though the spectacle remains alive in the rest of mainland Spain, an extraordinarily dangerous precedent has been set. These kinds of laws do not get repealed. One wonders whether the tradition is safe. I doubt it. Cockfighting and dogfighting can go underground, as they require less space. Raising a bull is far more difficult, and the actual bullfight necessitates a sizable arena.

The Canary Islands outlawed the bloodsport decades ago, but the maritime region was never a hotbed of corrida. Catalonia certainly was. Barcelona once hosted three rings, though popularity has waned considerably in recent years.

When one thinks of Spain, certain images come to mind. Cervantes, the Civil War, football, FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, Iniesta, Rafael Nadal, Pamplona, Fernando Alonso, Lorca, Iglesias, Serrat, spaghetti westerns, tapas, red wines, Ibiza, blood sausage, and BULLFIGHTING. Those flags at games aren't for nothing. Gone from Catalonia is one of the things that makes Spain SPAIN.

Globalization, by and large, is a wonderful thing. It has led to a rise in incomes and standard of living. The interchange of culture and trade have made products available where they would have been unthinkable a generation ago. The sad element of globalization is that the world is getting more BORING. If I can't see a bullfight in Barcelona, in all seriousness, what the hell is going on? I saw comments in articles lauding Catalonia's "stance that aligns with the rest of Europe." Pretty soon, the only thing Spanish left will be the language!

I love travel. When I visit different places, my mind swells with the collective history of the place- battles, faces, literature, and culture. Now, part of Spanish lore is relegated only to the words of the past. Many will forget that it was ever a central part of life.

If you don't like drugs, you don't have to do them. If you don't like a TV show, you don't have to watch. If you don't like bullfighting, don't go to the arena. Why bury someone's cherished tradition because you find it disturbing? Those who argue against bullfighting on grounds of "civilization" ought to think thrice about their own stances toward Islam. Much of Europe has enacted "hate speech" laws that render jail terms for the voicing of anti-religious sentiment. Last time I checked, Islam has been a bit destructive as of late. Of course it is absurd to ban such a thing, but by the "reasoning" we all to often hear, why should it not be outlawed?

Now I know people will say "we need laws to speak for the voiceless" and "we need to protect the animals." Well, while you're at it, why don't you give animals the right to vote? Why don't you write into the Geneva convention that every animal is deserving of basic health care, housing, and education? If we protect bulls, dogs, and roosters, why not cockroaches and iguanas? Why not extend protection to plants and computers? Especially computers, as they have Artificial Intelligence and are a hell of a lot smarter than man humans, let alone animals. If you support a ban on bullfighting, you'd better not be eating red meat. After all, it was bred, held in captivity, overfed, and slaughtered for your utility and enjoyment. And, apparently, that is wrong and evil in the context of bloodsport. There is no internal consistency to animal rights nincompoops. They have no argument, no standard, and no shame. ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS, ONLY PEOPLE DO.

4 comments:

  1. Roe v. Windows lives on! Protect the plants! Only drink water!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I disagree to a large extent. I don't think anyone would classify bullfighting as humane. It's torture of an animal for the entertainment of people, and I don't think any country should allow that, regardless of its history as an important part of Spain's culture. Animals certainly have rights because we decide that they have rights. As animals capable of using reason, we have the responsibility to protect all lesser animals. That doesn't mean that we can't eat them or use them for labor, but they should always be treated with dignity. Why? Because we're able to.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Patojo, your argument is certainly right in one way: that we decide whether animals have rights, and in what ways. You have taken the higher ground for this argument, because they do not have inherent rights, only those given by us. However, I would strongly disagree with your opinion of what that translates to. Why do we then have the responsibility to protect lesser animals? Who determines what rights they have? If we determine how to treat them who is the omnipotent human who has determined for all other humans how we each treat other animals? Just because we're able to treat them with "dignity", that doesn't mean that we in turn, cannot treat them as our entertainment. And well, we do not need to eat meat, but we choose to. It certainly isn't in our necessity with current technology to use them for labor either, so then why do we do the "dignified" thing and let them determine what they want to do? Oh yeah, because they don't have the capability of determining that, or telling us what they want to do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would like to add one more thing: Because we have the ultimate "rights", and we have the "right" to treat them a certain way, we do not transfer our "rights" unto them. We still maintain the monopoly on "rights". Treating them in a "dignified" manner (however each person interprets that) is the "right" thing to do, but they don't have the "right" to be treated that way. There is a big difference between "rights" and moral, ethical, and dignified behavior. But I think it is upon each society and each individual to determine what behaviors it views as appropriate. It is not some universal ideal that applies to all societies or individuals.

    ReplyDelete