|
People
often claim that we have pit bulls because of dog fighting, and
that pit bulls will not be the same without dog fighting. Many will
say they would never, ever, want their *own* dog to get hurt, but
they can see the historical point of dog fighting.
Can
we really trust humanity and its history to make this decisions
for us? Perhaps if people knew some of the social history of the
era in which dog fighting was borne, they would understand it as
a symptom of a social group of cruel and heartless men.
At
the time dog fighting was legal in England, it was also legal to
beat your wife and children, to hunt and kill any beast for the
sake of sport, and also legal to import the decapitated heads of
Pacific Islander peoples (Pacific Island natives slaughtered solely
for their heads, not as a result of disease or war) for decoration.
In
an era when all game and humans from distant lands can be slaughtered
to decorate some noble Englishman's country home, it's hardly surprising
that dog fighting would be legal. However, even back then it was
not considered a "gentleman's sport" but rather the blood
sport of the wharfies and uneducated farmers of the British Isles.
It was a substitute for the fox hunting and big game hunting the
rich could afford to do.
If
a society has not tendered itself to the cruelty of blood sports
and the rich participate in them, of course those in a lower socio-economic
group are going to imitate as best they can and that's what they
did with dog fighting. It was also tolerated because it provided
some financial income for those who had a low income or no other
way to provide for themselves or their family.
Two
years after importing human heads became illegal, dog fighting became
illegal in England, and these changes in British law came about
as a result of the first Reform Act of 1832, which William IV at
first opposed. Later, towards the end of his reign, he changed his
stance and adopted several liberal laws which included banning importing
human heads and dog fighting. It was seen at the time as the reformation
of a once well-traveled and worldy man and a pious outcry from that
man repenting for a hard-lived life and the blood shed in England.
When Victoria, his niece, came to the throne in 1838, these laws
were further enforced and have remained to this day. It was also
during this era of bloodshed that the importation of African peoples
by the British began in the United States for the purpose of slavery.
I
hope this helps people to understand the mentality and socially
accepted treatment of animals and people at this time in British
history. It is difficult to explain such an evil twist in British
history except a strong Tory/Whig political system bent on extracting
every last pence from any source, regardless of the suffering involved.
Of course, this would spill over into their hobbies and sports.
Even though many think that the Declaration of Independence separated
us from the British Isles, it only did so in law. The British looked
upon the Americas as a new land to colonize and exploit after it
was shown to them that people could actually live here and prosper,
and there were as many British here during our Revolutionary history
as there were U.S. citizens. Did you ever wonder why people would
save every last cent and get on a ship and sail for months with
little food in cramped and filthy conditions to get away from the
British? Life had to be pretty difficult and horrible there for
the average person in order to undertake such a risk for a better
life in an unknown country. And of course the British followed to
exploit these colonists.
I
have no desire to let such a historical period and group of people
make my decisions for me. Independence in this country is the leftover
symptom of such a cruel time. We have the breed as a result of this
time in history, that is true... but to say that pit bulls will
not be the same without dog fighting parallels saying that those
peoples brought into this country to be exploited and beaten and
abused would not be the same as well. The end doesn't justify the
means.
Some
people believe that a person who lets his dog fight with another
dog, and gives it vet care afterward, is not an inherently cruel
person. Maybe ignorant, but not sadistic like the person who just
lets the dog stay bleeding or the person who ties a dog to a tree
and abandons it, etc.
Dogfighting
is cruel - and it's sick. Too bad dogs can't talk. Cruelty and sadism
feel the same to the victim. Cruel means without pity - not caring
about the pain the dog endures from fighting. People seem to separate
the definitions of cruelty and sadism not by the act but by the
actions of the perpetrator after the fact, when sadism cannot exist
without first an act of cruelty. Then they excuse the cruel as ignorant
because he provides medical care. What exactly is he ignorant of?
That a cut and bleeding animal feels pain? Well maybe someone should
practice surgery on him without an anesthetic to enlighten him.
I don't need to know that someone took pleasure or gratification
in torturing an animal for me to think it's cruel and sick and wrong.
They are both wrong and both illegal and the law makes no distinction
for psychological motivation in this area.
Ever
notice the similarity in psychosis between a man fighting his dog
and giving it veterinary care and the man who beats his wife then
drives her to the ER? Does that make it any less a crime? It indicates
someone who has no control over their actions and cannot stop himself
from harming others. And they will both look you straight in the
eye and say "I love my wife" or "I love my dog".
These
individuals appear to not have the potential to make the decision
to not be cruel and cause harm. Maybe they're addicted and this
act provides some evil to feed their twisted souls. And no, they're
most likely not a "step away" because first they have
to acknowledge they are doing something wrong then seek a way to
heal from it, and not many people have the ability to psychoanalyze
and treat themselves and surely most criminals don't get psychiatric
help on their own volition.
Rehabilitating
every person who is cruel is not within our reach either unless
we are a professional psychologist or psychiatrist and this person
is willing to change. It is very difficult to reach those who do
not want to be reached. Ironically, this is one of those criminal
activities where most of the perpetrators actually get some of their
kicks seeing us sensitive types cringe.
Alexander
Moss
Author and Member of Pitbull-L
BACK
|
