On Tradition, Cockfighting and Education
"A Ban on Cockfighting, but the Tradition Lives On," by Adam B. Ellick in today’s New York Times, raises several important questions for me.
Let’s deconstruct:
- I was left wondering whether when cockfighting is made illegal, there’s any kind of humane education component to the law. Unless there is an education component, where the current and future
generations of chicken torturers have the opportunity to examine what
they’re doing and why, and learn about who chickens are and what
they’re capable of (i.e., sentience), you’re only treating the symptom.
You can chase people who have already bred and are already using the
chickens all day long, but until they realize that tradition isn’t a
valid justification for their form of "entertainment" and profit,
eradicating cockfighting will never happen. It’ll keep getting passed from generation to generation, as if it’s a perfectly acceptable thing to do. - If you tell people they’re not allowed to continue a brutal practice they think they’re entitled to practice due to "tradition" or "culture" (translation: there’s no good reason to do it other than they want to), of course you should plan on them going underground with it. Laws should come with budgets that make their enforcement possible.
- Not surprisingly, the article has references to "animal rights advocates," as if we’re the only ones who object to cockfighting. But I’m pretty sure the average veal-eating, purebreed-owning person on my street has a problem with it, too.
- Finally, you know how when there’s pressure to close a Greyhound track, racing supporters cry: But what about all of the jobs that will be lost? Here’s a great response by an animal control investigator after the courts in New Mexico dismissed a lawsuit by the New Mexico Gamefowl Association claiming economic devastation after the ban: “You need to go find a job at Wal-Mart." There’s easy money in every community, and often it is made at someone else’s expense. Children need to be having that discussion with their parents and at school so they don’t grow up believing they can harm whomever they want, even to support their families.
Ed Lowry, a director of the New Mexico Gamefowl Association said, “A gamecock shows me what an American should be like. You defend to the death.” No, Mr. Lowry, the gamecock defends to the death, and you walk away, making money from his suffering, his blood and his mutilation. Is that what an American should be like?
The other part of Ed's comment on gamecocks that is worth deconstructing is that he really glossed over why they fight to begin with. In real life, that is in a rooster's real life where they haven't been tortured into being fighting cocks, they don't fight to the death. Fight, yeah, but to the death? Nope. It is absolutely not part of their nature to fight to the death.
So what he's really saying is that an "american" is someone who has been tortured to the point where they will fight to the death.
And hey, that might not be a bad description of what happens to kids in boot camp. But since we don't have mandatory military service in this country, not all americans have been tortured.
pattrice has a great article on rehabilitating fighting cocks, and she explains in the article the process that makes them inclined to fight to the death. http://www.abolitionist-online.com/article-issue04_rehabilitating.fighting.roosters.shtml
I'm with Deb. The only thing Lowry left out was the extension of the analogy. Think of all the people getting rich of the Iraq war(s) and walking away making money from all the suffering, blood, and mutiliation. Sometimes I do think that is the American way, at least officially.
Thanks for the pattrice link Deb. Here's a snippet:
"Neither wild jungle fowl nor feral roosters living here or elsewhere fight to the death. Roosters do sometimes struggle for dominance and territory but the fights are short and rarely lead to serious injury. Certainly, fights such as are seen in cockfighting spectacles, where the victorious bird continues to attack until the loser is dead, do not occur. When a rooster has been bested, he assumes a submissive posture or runs away. The victor then postures or crows in a way that signals, "I've won!"
Breeders and trainers of fighting cocks prohibit the roosters from learning the social signals that allow such conflict resolution."
Again, check it out at: http://www.abolitionist-online.com/article-issue04_rehabilitating.fighting.roosters.shtml
I'm with you, Mary, on your thoughts that the vast majority of Americans, even the meat and potatoes kind or veal-loving kind tend to be against cock-fighting. I find it both annoying and hopeful when journalists label things that the vast majority believe "animal rights." Annoying because it ignores the broad support for such bans. Hopeful because it brings animal rights into the mainstream in a way.
(By the way, totally unrelated, I've noticed that people from New Mexico tend to be really protective of their food and they make sure you understand it's NEW Mexican food, not Mexican.)
Don't intend to be mean about it – but these pro-rooster fighting individuals interviewed, that were so concerned about thier threatened income could probably save themselves lots of money by just going on a d-i-e-t…..
Seriously, what a ridiculous "justification" for cock fighting…. the couple sent 2 kids to college on the money made from thier rooster death business? R-i-g-h-t…..