User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.1588 seconds
48 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
CSR: D.K. Wilson: Pedro Martinez, Cockfighting and America
“Well, I thought they wore gloves and helmets, you know, like “American Gladiators.”
Only in America can a man like ESPN’s Howard Bryant, on national television, tell viewers that because Pedro Martinez is employed in the United States, he should honor the feelings of the people of America—and his employer, the New York Mets—instead of the people in the land of his birth, the Dominican Republic. Martinez, according to Bryant the paternalist, should feel some sort of contrived angst at those who participate in cockfighting in the Dominican. Bryant can certainly express his feelings and his opinions about cockfighting—in America. But to subtly ascribe the tag of barbarism to Martinez, Marichal, and the people of the Dominican, is the stuff of jingoistic lore. That sort of speech is, along with a co-sign from a Christian god, the verbal gate that flings open the doors of ideological perception and continue to be the root of the yen to conquer under the guise of Manifest Destiny.
Ironically, it is speech that is hung around the neck of Howard Bryant, a black man, like a slip knot noose.
Repoz
Posted: February 12, 2008 at 04:50 PM | 207 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: mets, special topics
Tags: mets, special topics
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for June 2023
(77 - 11:30pm, Jun 02)
Last: frannyzoo
Newsblog: Former Los Angeles Dodger Steve Garvey weighs U.S. Senate bid
(20 - 11:15pm, Jun 02)
Last: baxter
Newsblog: MLB managers should be challenging a lot more in 2023
(4 - 10:22pm, Jun 02)
Last: The Duke
Newsblog: Aaron Boone’s Rate of Ejections Is Embarrassing ... And Historically Significant
(2 - 10:18pm, Jun 02)
Last: The Duke
Newsblog: Jays pitcher Anthony Bass sorry for posting video endorsing anti-LGBTQ boycotts
(97 - 10:02pm, Jun 02)
Last: baxter
Newsblog: The Athletic: After 50 years, is this the San Diego Chicken’s last stand? [$]
(14 - 8:23pm, Jun 02)
Last: Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath
Newsblog: 2023 NBA Playoffs Thread
(2539 - 7:27pm, Jun 02)
Last: Tom Cervo, backup catcher
Newsblog: Economic boost or big business hand-out? Nevada lawmakers consider A’s stadium financing
(10 - 6:14pm, Jun 02)
Last: McCoy
Hall of Merit: Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread
(35 - 4:10pm, Jun 02)
Last: bjhanke
Newsblog: 8 big All-Star voting storylines to follow
(25 - 3:48pm, Jun 02)
Last: cardsfanboy
Sox Therapy: Lining Up The Minors
(30 - 3:43pm, Jun 02)
Last: Darren
Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - The Run In
(416 - 3:15pm, Jun 02)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)
Sox Therapy: The First Third
(23 - 2:58pm, Jun 02)
Last: pikepredator
Newsblog: Diamond Sports Group fails to pay Padres, loses broadcast rights
(23 - 2:21pm, Jun 02)
Last: Karl from NY
Newsblog: ESPN the Magazine: Bat and Ball Games you've never heard of
(31 - 1:05pm, Jun 02)
Last: gehrig97
(77 - 11:30pm, Jun 02)
Last: frannyzoo
Newsblog: Former Los Angeles Dodger Steve Garvey weighs U.S. Senate bid
(20 - 11:15pm, Jun 02)
Last: baxter
Newsblog: MLB managers should be challenging a lot more in 2023
(4 - 10:22pm, Jun 02)
Last: The Duke
Newsblog: Aaron Boone’s Rate of Ejections Is Embarrassing ... And Historically Significant
(2 - 10:18pm, Jun 02)
Last: The Duke
Newsblog: Jays pitcher Anthony Bass sorry for posting video endorsing anti-LGBTQ boycotts
(97 - 10:02pm, Jun 02)
Last: baxter
Newsblog: The Athletic: After 50 years, is this the San Diego Chicken’s last stand? [$]
(14 - 8:23pm, Jun 02)
Last: Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath
Newsblog: 2023 NBA Playoffs Thread
(2539 - 7:27pm, Jun 02)
Last: Tom Cervo, backup catcher
Newsblog: Economic boost or big business hand-out? Nevada lawmakers consider A’s stadium financing
(10 - 6:14pm, Jun 02)
Last: McCoy
Hall of Merit: Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread
(35 - 4:10pm, Jun 02)
Last: bjhanke
Newsblog: 8 big All-Star voting storylines to follow
(25 - 3:48pm, Jun 02)
Last: cardsfanboy
Sox Therapy: Lining Up The Minors
(30 - 3:43pm, Jun 02)
Last: Darren
Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - The Run In
(416 - 3:15pm, Jun 02)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)
Sox Therapy: The First Third
(23 - 2:58pm, Jun 02)
Last: pikepredator
Newsblog: Diamond Sports Group fails to pay Padres, loses broadcast rights
(23 - 2:21pm, Jun 02)
Last: Karl from NY
Newsblog: ESPN the Magazine: Bat and Ball Games you've never heard of
(31 - 1:05pm, Jun 02)
Last: gehrig97
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Cockfighting is barbaric. Same with dogfighting, bullfighting, bear-baiting and any other animal abuse for the purpose of entertainment. People engaged in this behavior have, at least in this respect, a depraved culture.
Not all cultures are equal: some are superior and others inferior. The slave culture in America was certainly inferior to cultures which respect human liberty. When Englishmen and Quakers ascribed barabarism to the American slave masters, they were not being jingoistic. They were simply telling the truth about that institution: it was barbaric.
It matters not whether an ascription of barbarism comes from a Dominican or an American. Someone who cannot see that animal fighting, put on for the purpose of entertainment, is inhumane is depraved.
Because Pedro has lived and worked in North America (away from his native culture) for a long time, it's presumable that he understands how wrong cockfighting is. But it's possible he doesn't. Perhaps he was raised to be unfeeling toward innocent creatures and has grown a thick skin around this issue. And if that is the case, the only way he (or his fellow Dominicans) could know how barbaric their behavior is is for outsiders to point this out.
When the U.S. decides to ban firearms, including those used for hunting, then you can tell me about how we poor Spics south of the U.S. border are barbaric and how our cultures are inferior.
When the U.S. abolishes capital punishment, then you can tell me how we poor Spics south of the U.S. border are barbaric and how are cultures are inferior.
DISCLAIMER: I don't like cockfighting at all. But it's legal, ethical and respected in the Dominican. Period.
But even if you completely disagree with that and find cockfighting a charming anachronism from an older culture, you still have to admit that fact isn't particularly relevant to Pedro. He's making a ton of money as a member of a society that doesn't feel that way, a society that demands a certain level of respect for some basic mores and one that enjoys the occasional sanctimonius finger-pointing. He watched Vick get pounded and knows that whatever he does is going to end up in a blog somewhere, so it shoudn't take much insight to see where this might lead. I realize some of his charm is not being the polished ARod-type, but there are other ways to stay in touch with the folks at home than this.
What about FGM, sati, footbinding, slavery, harvesting organs from prisoners, etc?
Could a chicken actually fight anything other than another chicken? If they weren't domesticated, I wonder how they'd even survive in nature.
Can we say for sure the chickens in question are innocent? Maybe they're real pricks to the other chickens.
Countries have different cultures, and different value judgements in regards things.
To apply a country's values to another country is lovely, but people who do that seem to forget that their country of origin can also be seen as barbaric. And let's not get started on religions (some zealots here would probably like to breach the Peace of Westphalia).
(I can sort of buy Tim Kurjian's argument that the thing here isn't whether what Pedro's doing is ethnical or not, but the fact that he is a public figure in the U.S. and that cockfighting videos could - and would - hurt his career in the U.S. I think I can agree with Cris E on this. But I cannot possibly agree with the arrogance and audacity involved in someone telling other cultures that they are inferior).
And if it wasn't illegal in the DR, then sure, go ahead and vent, but why on earth should Pedro give a rat's patooie about what anyone up here thinks about his Winter hobbies? Are the Mets going to face picket lines around Shea on days he's supposed to be pitching? Is Topps planning to embed bits of those razor blades into their 2008 Martinez cards?
The author's "noose" line about Bryant was kind of ironic, given the whole tone of the article about cross-cultural sensitivity, but other than that, I tend to agree that this whole incident has been blown up way out of proportion. If I'm going to get agitated about the fate of fowl, I'd more likely begin in Delaware or Arkansas than in the Dominican Republic.
Otherwise, I agree entirely. Rifkin has little logic in his response. It's the type of single sided unempathetic approach that support institutions like slavery in the first place.
The reason why you can't come up with any contemporary examples is because you are living in a present society that sanctions things that we will likely find barbaric in a few generations.
Am I the only one who find the analogy of brutalizing animals to owning, raping and torturing humans really creepy?
The brutalization of animals is a central part of OUR culture as Americans. We just do it to different animals and where we don't have to look at it. To ignore that and then play the "we pay him lots of money so he has to do what we say" is an excellent example of jingoistic thought.
And FWIW, I don't like cockfighting, dogfighting, bullfighting or boxing one bit. And yes, one of those things is not like the others.
1)Some people don't like chicken fighting, some don't care, some don't like it but it's a cultural thing.
2)There was some argument if meat eaters can condemn ####-fighting from the moral high ground.
3)Most everyone loves fried chicken.
4)Cornbread = best thing ever.
Likewise, we are free to criticize the laws of other countries we view as barbaric. The opposite viewpoint is intended to stifle debate by raising the cultural relativism argument.
Well, it's one thing to say that because of cultural relatism we shouldn't criticize those customs. But it's another thing to expect that the objects of that criticism have any particular obligation to pay any attention to what we say. And I don't think that this practice quite attains the barbaric level of, say, forced abortions in China, if we want to bring other foreign countries into the discussion.
Sorry, I'll shut up. I'm going to go eat some raw horsemeat.
I do try to avoid statements asserting one culture is inferior to another. Most cultures are combinations of redeeming and appalling characteristics--they don't seem to me to readily exist along a neat line from worst to best.
Absent an argument imputing cultural superiority, how do you feel about a plain assertion that hurting animals solely for pleasure, is wrong?
Post 5 covers this territory well--I'll add that throwing your female newborn on the pyre was considered perfectly okay in India for centuries, too. I'm sure there are a few posters who will defend this practice, but would you agree that because something is acceptable doesn't make it right?
Of course Pedro's living under public scrutiny like pretty much every other public figure. That's a given. He knows that, and it's up to him to figure out whether to pay any attention to it. Who knows, he may begin to feel remorse when he thinks about all those PETA parties he won't be getting invites to.
But what kind of "social contract" did Pedro ever agree to about his private life outside the U.S. borders? And what right do we have to enforce such a one-sided agreement?
I'll start thinking about "social contracts" enforced on foreign-born athletes in their own countries when we start enforcing far more important social contracts on domestic businesses that slash wages and eliminate jobs while simultaneously padding their executives' year-end bonuses.
How about paying another human being to hurt themselves and others for your pleasure?
I would consider that worse than hurting animals. Oh crap, there goes football.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
If people want to defend the practice of cockfighting, then by all means, do so. But "it's the Dominican Republic, so it's okay" is no more a decent defense of the behavior than being in South America and saying "it's the USA, so capital punishment is okay". That doesn't make any sense.
Do different cultures view morality differently? Sure. But morality isn't a floating, inchoate thing - it's a product of current power structures. That's just the way it is. If Pedro Martinez wants to work within the power structure of the United States, he had better be prepared to deal with criticism from an American perspective.
generally speaking, I don't give a crap what other cultures do with animals. I find any animal fighting distasteful, but then again I consider how many Americans anthropomorphize their domestic pets to be disgusting too, so what do I care?
Now, how other cultures treat HUMANS ... that's where I start caring.
Have either Hillary or Obama weighed in on the question of Dominican cockfighting?
This is very important information for all us concerned Democrats. Am I going to have to vote for a write-in candidate?
Or the Americans could be civilized and understanding about it. Naah, that would never work. PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
Moreover, no-one tries to defend (say) Guantanamo as a cultural phenomenon. "Well, you and I may think locking people up without trial and torturing them for years is wrong, but that's just part of American culture, and it's not our place to say anything." No-one says that! These aspects of US law and society that you criticise have to stand or fall on their own merits. And the same thing should apply to the Dominican Republic, China, or anywhere else in the world. If you want to defend cockfighting on its own merits come right out and say so. But don't give me the patronising, subtly racist spin that condemns it here but accepts it abroad.
The fact that the US has problems does not mean that Americans cannot criticise barbaric behaviour abroad. Of course, it does bring to mind Luke 6:42.
EDIT: Or what JRE said more succinctly in #20.
Didn't say it was "okay" at all, and didn't say not to criticize it. But it's about a 1 on a scale of 1000 in terms of anything to lose sleep over.
Fully agree with you. I don't patronize cockfighting, bullfighting, dogfighting, rodeo type events or hunting.
I do like to fish, so you got me on that.
Are you suggesting that cockfighting is on the same level as burning females on a pyre?
In any case, I certainly agree that there are a number of things that I find barbaric in the world. But I would never dare call another culture inferior because I dislike the practice, for a number of reasons, including the fact that this is probably the best way to get people not to pay attention to you.
And finally, cockfighting in the Dominican is not only acceptable. It's legal and ethical by Dominican standards.
If we were arguing about something which might be legal, but which is not clearly acceptable or clearly ethical by that society's standards, then yes, we'd have an interesting argument on our hand (think female genital mutilation in Africa).
But this is not the case here, and unless a lot of you keyboard cockrel activists want to turn into rooster sufraggettes and go down to the Dominican to protect the fowl, I think a lot of you are just blowing hot air.
Also, how high are the high-horses going to get around here? Do I need a taller one?
[insert Piazza joke here]
I think some of you intentionally ignored that I said, "at least in this respect." I never said that the DR culture is inferior in all respects. Nor did I claim that our culture in superior in all respects. And even when it comes to the treatment of animals, such as certain farming practices we have, we are deplorable. Insofar as we decry the abuse of innocent creatures, that is superior.
"So which cultures are inferior? Superior? And why?"
I answered this, in this respect: cultures which permit "animal abuse for the purpose of entertainment" are inferior.
Saying that does not excuse inferior points of our own culture: We are ridiculously violent; we have way too many teenagers having unplanned pregnancies; we have drug abuse; we have (especially compared with the D.R.) a lot of racism; etc, etc.
"Rifkin has little logic in his response. It's the type of single sided unempathetic approach that support institutions like slavery in the first place."
I see. I specifically said that American slavery was barbaric; and by saying that, I support slavery. Eraser-X, what a brilliant guy you are, in a deep dark hole in the ground, never seen the light of day, spelunking sort of way.
the ####### chips are ####### cold
the ####### beer is ####### flat
the ####### flats have ####### rats
the ####### clocks are ####### wrong
the ####### days are ####### long
it ####### gets you ####### down
evidently chicken town
You dissappoint me, Rich. I was really hoping for a Top 10 and Bottom 10 Cultures lists. Would have left PETCO in the dust
That reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where he asks the teacher if the class can discuss whether cannibals should get lesser punishments since their actions are less wasteful.
Best Regards
John
I think some of you intentionally ignored that I said, "at least in this respect." I never said that the DR culture is inferior in all respects. Nor did I claim that our culture in superior in all respects. And even when it comes to the treatment of animals, such as certain farming practices we have, we are deplorable. Insofar as we decry the abuse of innocent creatures, that is superior.
"So which cultures are inferior? Superior? And why?"
I answered this, in this respect: cultures which permit "animal abuse for the purpose of entertainment" are inferior.
Well, let's limit the discussion to animal abuse, then. Is Dominican cockfighting "inferior" in terms of animal treatment to those mainstays of humanity, Perdue and Tyson? It's not as if factory farming is necessary to produce food for our table.
And if the counterargument to that is that "without factory farming the price of chicken would go up," that may be true, but I'm not sure how that relates to assertions of our "superior" treatment of animals vis-a-vis the Dominican Republic.
I suppose I deserve the gratuitous insult--I left the "ed" off the end of slavery.
I wasn't saying that you support slavery. I was saying that the equating groups of humans with animals was an ideology that supported slavery. That's why I find all of the comparisons to burning Indian babies and human slavery really creepy. Is that clearer? Sorry for the typo.
I noticed you didn't answer the question about taking pleasure in the suffering of humans. Is that better or worse than animals?
I want to gauge whether there are logical arguments or "killing a kitten is the worst thing in the world" arguments running the show here.
Is that even legal?
They are surviving in the wild very nicely all over the Island of Kauai. Hurricane Iniki blew over a lot of chicken coops. The chickens that survived ran free, and they have basically overrun the island.
The chicks do look cute. And the stray cats look better fed than usual.
Like Circus's? so any culture which has a circus, and to be fair, has Elephants in the circus, should be considered a culture which is inferior.
I mean it's quite possible that 100 years from now, our current society will be considered barbaric for it's food creation practices, and sorry any culture that has companies like Tyson, cannot claim a superiority, they may be able to claim one type of superiority(animal cruelty, but again we go back to allowing circus's which most people consider to be barbaric in it's practice of training animals, hunting which many consider barbaric or even fishing) but not superiority on the whole.
No, no. I was using an extreme example in hopes of making the point that we're not bound to accept a behavior or practice just because it is accepted by a particular culture.
I'm against anything not consensual, and I'm against anything avoidable that curtails the potential of another human being.
what is "barbaric" is the the fact that people - well, actually, MALES (seeing as how i've never seen a single solitary female watching roosters shred each other to ribbons) are getting off on watching animals shred each other, suffer incredible pain, before dying.
i would be real surprised if there are lots of males standing around slaughterhouses here in america all excited and shouting, watching with c0ck in hand (hahahaha) as chickens get there heads chopped off. or cows or pigs get a bolt. or whatever. we don't kill animals for food by FIRST torturing them.
and i wouldn't agree to eat no frito pollo if the pollo was got by torturing the animal to death.
i don't care if you are talking white/black/latin/asian/all of em - there is something seriously fukked up about getting off on watching animals hurt/kill each other
and as for sitting in judgement of other cultures - well there is a difference between disapproving/having contempt for what they do and going there to force them to change what they do. all yall guys might could think - like who cares if females in some other country get there genitals cut off when they are 10 or if they are sold or if they are murdered if they are raped - but as for me - far as i'm concerned, them cultures ARE barbaric
In an absolute sense, factory farming is much less humane than cockfighting simply because so many more chickens suffer under it. However, context matters. The intent of factory farming is to produce cheap and readily available food for humans, which it succeeds in doing. The intent of cockfighting is to entertain spectators.
Why you do something can be just as important as what you do. Cutting a person open to remove a tumor is very different from cutting a person open because you're bored.
Some of the females like cat fights, though
Also, how high are the high-horses going to get around here? Do I need a taller one?
I blew my one and only high horse-joke on some stupid Braves prospect...
Oh, I'm shameless, let's rerun it:
"These horses are so high you've got to wonder if Snoop has bought a ranch"
Come out here. You will see males and females involved with cockfighting. It is very popular among parts of the Filipino community (legal in the Philipines, although not here). Those chicken coops blown over on Kauai were not all for meat or egg production.
That's only because the slaughterhouses haven't incorporated gambling into the whole enterprise. Great read here about Balinese cockfighting by Clifford Geertz. An excerpt:
As much of America surfaces in a ball park, on a golf links, at a race track, or around a poker table, much of Bali surfaces in a #### ring. For it is only apparently cocks that are fighting there. Actually, it is men.
To anyone who has been in Bali any length of time, the deep psychological identification of Balinese men with their cocks is unmistakable. The double entendre here is deliberate. It works in exactly the same way in Balinese as it does in English, even to producing the same tired jokes, strained puns, and uninventive obscenities.
And entertainment is worth nothing? Will there only be room for bread and no circuses in the hypermoral world?
As a pure sport, animal fighting is worse, in that the fighting animals had no choice in entering the contest and that those who fail either die in the ring or are put down as worthless. Boxers, presumably, are adults who make a choice to behave like barbarians, and will walk out of the ring, win or lose.
I do think that most boxing fans (in the contemporary U.S.) don't literally want to see boxers killed or seriously maimed. (Even the boxers say they don't want to seriously injure their opponents.) However, when one fighter is pummeling the other guy, the audience clearly hoots, hollers, gets crazy, screams "knock him out!" and "kill him!" and other unsavory testosteronial exclamations. I believe that audience behavior is clearly barbaric.
That raises the question: should boxing (or ultimate fighting) be banned? I say no. As long as the fighters are willing participants (and of sound minds), it should be their choice to enter the ring or not, and the audience's choice to pay to watch. However, like a lot of other unsavory activities, it ought not be above criticism. Personally, I am less critical of people who choose to fight for sport (or for a living) than those who get their thrills watching one man bash the other man's head in. That's pretty much how I feel about football fans who enjoy seeing a brutal tackle.
A culture is a web of thousands and thousands of practices, and contains lots of contradictions and inconsistencies. To judge one culture as "better" than another, particularly on the basis of a single practice, makes very little sense logically or ethically.
But you can absolutely judge a practice cross-culturally. If you don't approve of cockfighting, there is no reason to condone it just because you admire other practices of a culture that condones cockfighting. It's like an individual who may have a lovely personality but does one thing you deeply disapprove of. In this case, it's actually about an individual, too. If you love Pedro and don't love cockfighting, you have to love Pedro a little less. Excusing the cockfighting because he's Dominican is just a rationalization.
Btw, in a post a few weeks ago, didn't you refer to men of pale complexion you might have some heat for as, "white meat"?
;)
Well, the sensible thing to do would be to make cockfighting more efficient and conduct it on a massive scale. Change it from single combat to organized warfare. Then televise it. Casualties go to the supermarket, and you could charge a premium for particularly heroic specimens as consumers line up to eat their tasty, tasty courage.
It's not only legal and ethical, it's a widely popular sport. It's not like Pedro Martinez and Juan Marichal frequently turn up in the back of bars all over Washington Heights..this was on youtube because it was televised. Look at all the sponsorship around the ring.
I think the condemnation is interesting because it reveals that society still views culture in very much a white European framework. Cockfighting is associated with immigrants in the back of dingy storefronts in the inner city...the Seinfeld episode with Little Jerry was full of so-called ethnic types sweating with white short sleeved shirts smoking cigars and holding betting slips, instead of stockbrokers in suits. IMO, this is the overall image of what cockfighting represents.
Meanwhile, if Greg Maddux (I picked him because he grew up on a USAB in Madrid) opened a corrida in Spain, no one would care. Even though bullfighting is a pretty brutal sport, we have come to respect and understand it because people in our culture have celebrated bullfighting. Hemingway loved the sport and painted bullfighters as the man's man. Pamplona is considered a rite of passage for some people, as well as used in ads to promote products and at one point it was even covered live on ESPN. Furthermore, the Spanish are a white, European people and the bullfighter doesn't wear a wifebeater with his chest hair sticking out, but rather a costume centuries old.
It's interesting how our culture has deemed some bloodsports acceptable because of who has presented it to us, how they are presented by those people, and that if these cultures cover their bloodsports in enough bullshit, we accept them.
Rich condemns all of mankind here:
Since all cultures do, all cultures are inferior. And when all cultures are inferior...none of them are.
Delta brings the Socrates here though:
So, catch-and-release fishing can only be described as "animal abuse for the purpose of entertainment". So is hunting - duck, pheasant, deer. Sure, you may well have eaten it, but you didn't need to hunt it.
MY wife and I argued this - she felt like I should condemn Pedro's actions. Pass. He's elsewhere and really, it's NOMFB. Telling the DR not to have cockfighting violates the Prime Directive.
It's one group of people declaring something immoral and dictating another group their behavior.
You've heard the women protest: "Keep your laws off my body."
Hey, keep your laws off my ####.
This depends. The question with a circus (in my mind) is how the animals are treated. I have read that many circus elephants are terribly abused, whipped, shocked, and so on. That clearly is barbaric and ought to be outlawed. However, if the animals can be trained humanely and are treated decently, then the circus itself seems fine to me.
So when it comes to judging the relative merits of a culture, my opinion is that one which permits animals to be treated inhumanely is clearly inferior to one which does not.
What's funny to me in this discussion is that so many folks -- I assume you are mostly on the left side of the poltical spectrum and come at this from a politically correct mind-set -- are unwilling to judge a culture inferior. Is this some sort of guilt complex?
Keep in mind: cultures change. We used to have a much more racist and anti-Semitic culture in the United States. That culture was inferior to what we have now. Some day, when the Dominican culture progresses, they will look back on this treatment of innocent creatures and in this respect judge that culture inferior.
As opposed to the intent of factory farming, which is to maximize the profits of the factory farming corporations? Is that what the case for our superior culture boils down to?
Why you do something can be just as important as what you do. Cutting a person open to remove a tumor is very different from cutting a person open because you're bored.
That's a legitimate distinction, but in the case of factory farming it begs the question of whether that particular form of poultry farming is necessary to produce food for the table, as opposed to whether it's necessary to produce extra layers of profit for Tyson and Perdue.
And if the question gets reduced to less animal suffering = more expensive chicken (which in fact is what it all boils down to), then it's hard for me to accept that the resolution of that question in the direction of "screw the chickens, just keep em cheap" offers any particular evidence of a superior culture. Particularly when a good percentage of the added profits derived from that incremental suffering is being scarfed off into the pockets of the chicken factories .
No #### - they're animals. They don't really have a choice to become food either.
Uh, being a captive in the circus is inhumane - it's animal slavery. they didn't have a choice. I guess the slaveowners that were nice to their slaves (trained humanely and treated decently) were just fine. WTF?
The second analogy is not quite as good, but the first one is 100% spot on. Does this make that type of fishing as barbaric as cockfighting? Or is it OK because it's not presented in the form of mass entertainment?
What's funny to me in this discussion is that so many folks -- I assume you are mostly on the left side of the poltical spectrum and come at this from a politically correct mind-set -- are unwilling to judge a culture inferior. Is this some sort of guilt complex?
Not at all, Rich. It's just that some people know that there's a difference between a fire and a firefly.
Post #50, #53, #54 -- you need psychiatric help.
Post #49 -- I'm fairly certain that bullfighting (where the animal is killed) is illegal in all 50 states.
Get real.
... unless sugar is involved.
It is presented for mass entertainment. Bill Dance is big time. There are millions and millions of dollars spent on marlin-fishing tournaments all the time, not to mention bass fishing on TV. A lot more people watch that than are in the DR.
Welcome to the Union!
Let's say morally superior practice instead of morally superior culture to avoid getting off track.
Both cockfighting and factory farming are matters of placing profit (better entertainment vs. more dollars) over the suffering of a non-consenting animal. In that respect, they are morally equal. That isn't the basis of the "cockfighting worse" argument.
I suppose an analogy would be a person who kills a co-worker for the purpose of career advancement as opposed to a person who kills a person for the purpose of enjoying his suffering. Both are pretty serious evils. But the first person commits, in my opinion, a lesser moral sin.
I understand why some might disagree on the weighting, but there's a different moral state between actions performed out of enjoyment of suffering and actions performed in the pursuit of profit. Intent matters.
Cultures are incredibly complex things, consisting of innumerable practices and mores. I have no problem with deciding that certain aspects of a culture are inferior to others, but to decide that an entire culture is inferior to mine is just asinine.
I think cockfighting is barbaric. I think what happened at Abu Ghraib - abusing people for entertainment purposes - is much, much worse. Does this mean that I think Dominican culture is superior to American culture? Do you?
BBC is right on the money here (which is to say she makes a point I was going to make until I saw she'd already done so). Such cultures are, I'm sorry to say, patently depraved, which in turn makes them demonstrably inferior to many others in many vitally important respects.
I suspect I'm at least as politically correct as anyone here (or at least to the extent that a really, really warped sense of humor allows ... I still think that a death-camp-based sitcom equivalent to Hogan's Heroes called What's Up, Dachau would've been a neat idea), but some things just can't -- or least shouldn't -- be denied.
from my limited understanding, it's nearly impossible to train elephants in a humane manner, regardless of what the 'trainers' claim they do. Which is why I pointed out to elephants specifically (but should probably also include pretty much any predator type of animal, such as Lions, Tigers and Beers--oh my--- animals which require a large amount of land to roam in order for it to be considered not cruel)
I'm coming from the left mostly and have no problem with judging a culture inferior, just have a problem with judging this particular instance as an example of inferior culture. The concept of it's not barbaric if I don't see it makes very little sense to me. The U.S. kills a crapload of more chickens in one month(heck possibly one day) than the entire world probably kills in cockfighting in one year and yet somehow ours is the superior culture? (note we are only talking about animal cruelty here from different cultures)
I agree about the concept of choice for a being that is capable of grasping that concept, but we are talking about animals here, regardless of what Looney Tunes and Disney has done, animals don't really grasp that much. Yes they do feel pain, but they don't grasp higher concepts so we can't ask them if they would prefer to live up to three years and fight to the death, while eating quality grain or if they would prefer to be locked in a cramped cage, forced fed steroids, prevented from any type of exercising and living to a ripe age of around 10 months, and never given a chance to continue living. I'm not too sure, but if I'm the chicken I'm going to take the fight to the death option.
I completely agree.
"I have no problem with deciding that certain aspects of a culture are inferior to others, but to decide that an entire culture is inferior to mine is just asinine."
That's exactly what I did. I said "in this respect" the Dominican culture is inferior. And after stating that opinion, 500 copies of Das Kapital are thrown at me by the guilt-ridden ninnies.
Well, you have to make a value judgement here. Is cheap and abundant chicken meat worth animal suffering? Some people, including me, think so. Others may not. Just like we make a value judgement about cockfighting. Does the entertainment value justify the suffering? I'm not really sure how the anti-corporate talking points are germaine to the discussion about how we treat animals. Would inflicting suffering on animals be more acceptable if done by a non-profit?
It's really a larger issue, but factory farming IS necessary for the majority of Americans to continue with the type of diet they're accustomed to. That diet may not necessarily be a good thing, but most people would have to make huge changes in their diet (and lifestyle) without factory farming. The vast majority of "organic" meat and produce comes from factory farms, and it's still expensive and only marginally less cruel. Most free range chickens are neither free, nor do they range.
Really? So you won't go out on a limb and say that any culture is superior to Germany under Hitler? The U.S. has plenty of warts, but I'm comfortable taking the moral high ground over the Nazis.
Yeah, you're right, I should have made exceptions for genocidal cultures.
Given that (a) I lived outside New Orleans in the late '80s & (b) my father's side of the family is from north Louisiana, (c) I have no problem regarding Louisiana as socioculturally inferior to ... well, most anywhere you can think of. This from a native of Arkansas & denizen of Alabama, mind you.
was that really a culture or a 'regime' that was at fault though? I don't think any Germans up to that time, considered concentration camps as part of their culture.
My mom and sister live there now, and part of the reason my sister moved there is her husband wanted a place that he could go out into the backyard and piss without the cops being called out. (not kidding, that is a reason he gave, of course that was more about having a large backyard and no neighbors but still...)
I really wasn't making a comment about where Louisiana ranked, just was somewhat surprised that it was still legal anywhere in the U.S. Heck the Wiki entry lists Wilfred Brumley as a vocal supporter of Cockfighting (not sure why it's relavent, just thought it was interesting)
I don't have the energy to be high-minded so, instead, I present the greatest fighting rooster song of all time. No idea if the version is any good, but I'm willing to take a chance on it.
I ask you, Rich Rifkin... Do the rivers still run muddy, outside of my beloved Casas Grande?
Sure, Rich, but not to toss another book at you, your second paragraph in #1 makes a sweeping statement about the superiority of some entire cultures to others.
I am also happy to feel superior to Nazis, but "culture" is, again, a vast and contradictory thing. Helmut Schmidt grew up in Nazi Germany, and the Abu Ghraib offenders grew up in our America. Obviously there is a hell of a lot more about Nazi Germany I would object to than there is about 21st-century America, but cultures are internally diverse and include (though they often repress) strong disagreements. There must be some star Dominican baseball players who wouldn't be caught dead at a cockfight, and they should stand up and be admired.
A government is a reflection of its people. This was absolutely a culture that embraced the inferiority of a number of people and willingly participated in laws that made that perceived inferiority a part of everyday society.
A German shop owner with a "No Jews or Dogs" allowed sign is part of the culture, not just Hitler being in charge.
Yes, I am. However, I never said all aspects of a culture -- even Nazi Germany had good beer, advanced highways and Mercedes Benz.
From the start I said, "in this respect." As you said, and I agreed, "cultures are incredibly complex things, consisting of innumerable practices and mores." However, some aspects of some cultures are inferior or superior, in my opinion.
It seems pointless -- so maybe Chris Dial will do it -- to add up the merits and demerits of each culture writ large and rank them. But on certain points, it's perfectly valid to express the opinion that Culture A is better than Culture B for this or that reason. I'm amazed (though not surprised) that some poltically correct people won't make such judgments.
I'm not sure what this means. Are you talking about the Casas Grandes village in the Mexican state of Chihuahua? If so, I've never been there. I've heard of it, though.
You lost me here, Rich. An analysis of capitalism superior to that contained in Das Kapital has yet to be written.
this I disagree. Just like the torturing of prisoners by our military, just because it is done by the group doesn't mean it's culturally accepted by the group. The Nazi government had a stranglehold on the country, to resist anything they required would be an invitation into trouble.
that is part of the culture, or at least it could be interpretted that way. (similar to whites only that was happening in the U.S. and is still somewhat considered to be a part of the culture of parts of this country today)
The actions of the government doesn't necessarily reflect the actions of the culture, instead it's a reflection of the particular current leadership who could have gotten into power by corruption and lying (see current U.S. monarch) force or any other means, but that doesn't mean it's a reflection of the culture. A vast majority of americans don't aprove of torture, yet it was brought up as a reflection of our culture, it's not.
Well, yeah. You're right. That's just implied, but I shoulda specified for those who weren't involved.
the point is that you originally said that this point was the reason some cultures were better, but now you are backing off and saying on this issue, and even then people will argue with you because you are somewhat bouncing around. You say it's a choice issue because the animals aren't given a choice, then say it's ok if they aren't given a choice if they are treated nice(by your particular standard of nice, mind you keeping an animal locked up is considered by many to be a cruel and barbaric practice) then say it's ok to treat animals poorly(tyson) provided it's for the better profit interest of a company as long as no one cheers for the eventual death of these animals.
As I mentioned before if the Chicken was given a choice between being lifestock or a fighter(and those are the only two choices) that any intelligent being would take the fighter option, at least there you live well, longer and have a chance to become a breeder.
I think that's pretty disingenuous. It's true that in your first post you said that "People engaged in this behavior have, at least in this respect, a depraved culture." But in your very next sentence you said "Not all cultures are equal: some are superior and others inferior." It certainly sounds like you were saying that Dominican culture is inferior to American culture.
I agree that (a) with a few exceptions like Nazi Germany, we can't really rank cultures in any sense, and (b) we can criticize certain elements or practices of other cultures. I think the right and left often tussle over this issue because those on the right are more willing to lable a culture "good" or "bad," and are critical of those on the left who won't do the same. But most liberals will readily argue that a specific practice (e.g., torture, no freedom of speech, female circumcision) is bad.
It's really a larger issue, but factory farming IS necessary for the majority of Americans to continue with the type of diet they're accustomed to. That diet may not necessarily be a good thing, but most people would have to make huge changes in their diet (and lifestyle) without factory farming. The vast majority of "organic" meat and produce comes from factory farms, and it's still expensive and only marginally less cruel. Most free range chickens are neither free, nor do they range.
If you're saying that factory farming is necessary to maintain the same level of production nationwide, I don't think that's true. If you're saying that it's necessary to maintain the same retail prices (IOW, super cheap), then I agree.
I was told by a friend in Israel, who learned this from the Israeli media -- so perhaps bias is at play here -- that when the Abu Ghraib crimes (committed by Americans) were first reported in Egypt, the Egyptian press reported them accurately and matter of factly. The government of Egypt responded by lightly condemning the American behavior. And not much of a ruckus was raised beyond that. But then, weeks later, some Egyptian papers and a Beirut-based satellite TV station, having caught wind of anti-American protests over Abu Ghraib in Europe, began reporting fantastical accounts (wholly made up) of barbaric torture committed by Americans at Abu Ghraib. And it was the latter untrue accounts which generated a firestorm of protest in Egypt. The sense was that the original stories, told honestly by al-Arabia and al-Jazeera and the mainstream Egyptian newspapers, were not seen as that big of a deal. Every day in Egypt far worse indignities are perpetrated by that government against prisoners and detainees. So in order to get ordinary people angry, it was necessary to invent Abu Ghraib under Americans as being nearly as bad as Abu Ghraib was when Saddam ran it.
Really? So it's worse to call something wrong than to do something wrong?
There is a long history of those who defied their government in opposition to unjust laws. I would say that if military personnel don't refuse to obey orders to torture prisoners and take the consequences, acceptance of torture is part of military culture.
No government exists without the acceptance of the governed. That acceptance may be out of fear, but people can and have eventually overcome fear to overthrow governments.
Racism was absolutely part of our culture. It was because it was part of our culture that it was in our laws as well.
A vast majority of americans don't aprove of torture, yet it was brought up as a reflection of our culture, it's not.
America is also a fairly interesting example because it is so large and so diverse that it really can't be said to have a monolithic culture in many areas. But there are quite a few people in this country that are totally fine with the idea of torture. It isn't fringe just because the pro-torture folks are in a minority here on BBTF.
If this is really the product of a leader so out of touch with what this country's people really feel with regards to torture, we'll see some laws making it more clear over the next few years. I'm not holding my breath.
Based on many posting styles, most BBTFers are pro-torture.
I'm saying that meat would become so expensive that the eating habits and lifestyles of most Americans would have to change. If you're a militant vegetarian or the sort of person who thinks they know what's best for other people, you might consider that a good thing. Otherwise, not so much.
I was saying that: Dominican culture, in this respect, is inferior to any culture which does not allow animal fighting sports. I never commented at all on other aspects of Dominican culture. I don't know very much about most other aspects of their culture. I quite admire, nevertheless, their brilliant baseball culture. I wish we could go back to a time when most boys simply put on a glove, grabbed a bat and a ball, and played pick up baseball games. It's a lot more fun than Little League.
So, it's okay to for the DR to have cockfighting?
Two cheers for barbarism. If the alternative to cockfighting is hyperbolic moralizing, I'll put ten pesos on El Asesino.
Really? So it's worse to call something wrong than to do something wrong?
I thought you just said cockfighting wasn't wrong?
And it should be "Little Jerry Seinfeld".
Is this intended as a defense for what happened in Abu Ghraib? If so, it makes no sense. Who cares about the Egyptian reaction to Abu Ghraib? Did the Egyptian media manufacture those photos?
And as was pointed out to you, all cultures allow animal fighting sports.
Neither, but I do think many aspects of factory farming are cruel, extremely bad for the environment, and bad for the country in the long run. If that makes me some sort of "liberal fascist," so be it.
Saying that all animals, human or otherwise, should be treated with a basic degree of respect and dignity is *not* the same kind of ideology that supported slavery. I think that indifference to the suffering of another living thing because it's part of the culture and economy is more similar to the mindset that led to slavery.
I certainly don't agree with everything that Rich said here, and I'm not interested in judging cultures, but I think we need to be able to make moral judgments about individual practices even if they are done by other people and even if we are not perfect ourselves. The fact that nobody's perfect means we need to be able to debate individual practices--it shouldn't be used as an argument to stifle discussion.
I have to disagree, this was one command and that is it. It's not appropriate to take one extremely minority group actions and claim it across the entire group as a whole. And even if it's the military as whole performing these actions, it's because of the upper management, not the culture of the military. Culture isn't a current events type of thing, it's something ingrained over time, if bell bottoms became fashionable for some reason, and everyone is wearing them, it wouldn't mean that is part of our culture, it would mean it's fashionable for the time.
Yes we fought them, and it was awesome.
I think you ignore the fact that one of the differences is that it is not just bulls being killed by other animals. There is a man in the ring, and he is taking some chances. Me, I root for the bull, and everyone once in a while, the bull gets in a good one.
By contrast, the only real chances the cockfighters are taking is maybe psittacosis or avian flu.
For all that, plenty of people are opposed to bull fighting. The fact that Hemingway was in favor of it just means the ones opposed to it are probably in the right.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main