The Parliament of Catalonia took a recent vote to ban bullfighting in Catalonia, the first region of mainland Spain to do so. This ban resulted in a diverse response, as many are against the ban, but others support it. Bullfight supporters argue that bullfighting is an important tradition and should be preserved. They fear that this ban would be the first of many in the country until bullfighting is completely lost in the world. However, animal rights activists argue that this practice is cruel and say that most of the spectators in Catalonia these days are tourists. In bullfighting, six bulls are killed each time, and are tortured for 20 minutes. These activists are quick to point out the difference between killing for fun and killing for need.
This case is very similar to the case of the Jintou Dog Meat Festival where history or culture is pitched against ethics. In what context would one be more important than the other? When bullfighting was popular in Spain and Portugal in the early 18th century, ethics were not considered because animal rights activists were not that popular or as important as they are nowadays. Because of this, bullfighting was not seen as a cruel sport, but rather an art, and was developed into a deep rooted tradition. The tradition did not change much over the years, but the context did. Animal rights became more and more important, and although not much of bullfighting changed, the views toward bullfighting changed dramatically. The question when new views are presented is that can new views and old views towards something coexist? Or will there be constant tension between the two until one is universally accepted to be more “correct” than the other?
Another question that this case raises is what is the definition of culture? Bullfighting was considered a culture because it was unique to the Spanish and was treasured as an art. However, bullfighting is decreasing in popularity, and most of the spectators in Catalonia these days are tourists. If the culture is not preserved by its own cultural group, then would that culture still have a meaning? When only tourists watch the bullfights, the bullfights seem more as a show of entertainment rather than the practice of a culture. If culture can be defined as entertainment instead, then cruel entertainment would be a much more straight forward ban. The ambiguity of words can easily manipulate the view of the case.
Personally, I am against the idea of bullfighting. History is important, but only impacts what is in the context of it. When old history is brought up in modern times, it is often decontextualized and would sometimes seem questionable. Because of the importance of the context, I believe that it is necessary to follow the changes in the world of ethics. I don’t think that people should use history to justify what they are doing now. Therefore, I am against bullfightings.
However, even though I am against bullfighting, I am also against the formal ban of it. I believe that bullfighting should not be formally banned, but merely gently discouraged in the society. Individuals should be left with their own choices on whether or not they want to attend a bullfight or not. Sometimes the mere action of taking away a right, whether it was important or not, could incite people because they become suddenly aware of the right that they had which was now lost. People don’t always care about what is taken away, but only the fact that something is taken away from them. I think that since bullfighting is waning in popularity anyways, time will do its job and stop bullfights eventually. This ban would quicken the process of getting rid of bullfighting, but would also create unnecessary arguments.
Another case that is similar to this case is the water bottle green initiative in TAS. TAS used to allow students to use plastic water bottles to drink water from, just like how Spain allowed bullfights. Then, with the relatively new ideas of going green and protecting animal rights, both have been banned. Now, students are suddenly mad at the admin for taking plastic bottles away, as if the plastic bottles were so crucial to our happiness in TAS. Although this water bottle case is not the same battle between History and Ethics, it is the same idea of old practices going against new initiatives.
This issue could be related to a very similar example, bull riding. Bull riding is a sport that involves a rider attempting to stay on a bull for at least 8 seconds without getting bucked off. It is known to be a tradition in America and other Western countries. However, in my opinion, bull riding is really just a bunch of spectators watching it as an entertainment. In the article, it's brought up that there's a difference between killing the bulls for fun and killing for need. There's probably no need of bull riding now, yet in the past, bull riding was started for a reason. Cowboys began bull riding as a training for their living. Therefore, people can't say that there's not a necessity for these kind of activities, and instead they should respect this tradition. While the social attitude towards this activity may have changed, I agree with the original poster that out of respect there shouldn't be a ban on these activities. As fewer and fewer people see the need for or enjoy them, they will slowly die out.
ReplyDeleteI understand your point in that bull fighting presents a clash between tradition and ethics, but I feel that human ethics is what should be questioned. Human ethics is inherently flawed in that it is biased towards whatever we show more interest in. Take for example eating dogs in the Jintou Dog Meat Festival, and eating beef, neither one is more right or more wrong then the other, but since the majority of pet owners spend more time with dogs, there is a certain affinity towards them.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned the difference between killing for fun, and killing for need, but the outcome is eventually going to be the same, so why not use it as a source of entertainment generating revenue at the same time? In my opinion, if you are going to say that you are against the idea of bullfighting, you should be against the idea of eating animals too. However, my main point is still the flaws of human 'ethics', in that it isn't as clearly defined as it should be to be the basis of law and order in a country.
To answer your question on whether new views and old views can coexist, I believe that there will always be some sort tension between the two. Since human morals and values are changing with time, old traditions may seem crude or unacceptable to the new society, however this is simply how history is made. There are lots of past traditions that have been discontinued, and they’ve merely become a part of the history of that culture. An example is foot binding in the Chinese culture that originated in the Song dynasty. Small feet were considered as beauty, however when this tradition was brought into our present world, people saw it as improper, because foot binding can cause permanent disability. Therefore, it is difficult for old and new values to coexist. So when the government or others begin to stop a type of ritual, it is simply the process of making history. It merely means that the tradition no longer fits into the moral values of that present society, and so it will continue existing in the history of that culture.
ReplyDeleteThe interpretation of the word “ban” can also be discussed here. I think there are two ways to interpret the word. Ban can mean that something is officially forbidden, and this gives people the idea that some sort of behavior or tradition is lost forever because it will no longer be practiced. However, banning a tradition can also mean creating history, which creates a less negative connotation. Banning a tradition simply means this ritual will move on to become the history of that culture, and so the sense of lost isn’t as strong.
HI KATIE! This is definitely a clash between tradition and ethics - it's interesting to think that being ethical isn't part of human tradition isn't it, or that it's still in the process of evolution - but a side issue is also whether or not the government has the right to violate the freedoms of its people to celebrate a part of their culture, which you sort of allude to in your concluding paragraph, when comparing legal banning to "gentle discouragement." This is significantly different from most individual versus society controversies, because in this case, the government isn't protecting the rights of a person or people, but rather those of animals, which further begs the question of what rights animals are entitled to? Where is the line between preventing animal cruelty and valuing them equal or above other human beings? Examples include not only the preservation of human history, but also Paris Hilton's ridiculous chihuahua, strange sexual fetishes (a boy in Bali claimed to be seduced by a cow), and animal testing, where the lives of animals are exchanged for those of humans. How do you substantiate the intangible entity that is "ethics" and whether it is inclusive of animals? What naturally follows is the dilemma of what makes animals different from human beings or even other animals? Because as Ming Ray points out, what's the difference between a dog and a cow? Why is it abhorrent to eat one and not the other?Though I too have trouble defining culture, I personally believe that it is essential to the diversity and vividness of the human species, and would be slightly reluctant to allow such a prominent aspect of Spanish history to be lost. However I do believe a compromise is possible, if the government would make the effort to pay for bulls to be trained in a convincing reenactment of a bull fight, then that would satisfy both animal rights activists and those who want to experience a bit of Spanish culture. To Ming Ray, I feel the need to mention that I feel like there is a colossal gap between killing for fun and killing for need, even though there is death in both cases. It is the difference between soldiers defending their homeland and a psychopath strangling children in their beds.
ReplyDeleteI just happen to have a related art project to your bullfighting! Personally, I am strongly against this kind of practice. As both you and the news pointed out, this tradition is cruel and that it's mostly tourists that are watching the bullfights. I agree with what you said on, “These activists are quick to point out the difference between killing for fun and killing for need”. To the people in Spain, they might think that it is their need to carry on the bullfight and to preserves this tradition. On the other hand, for people who don’t live in Spain or does not understand the culture in Spain might think that those people are simply torturing the bull for fun and entertaining the others. Here, we can see that there’s controversy going on in terms of perception. What we think and what others think are different even when we are all thinking of the same subjects.
ReplyDeleteHowever, at the same time, bullfighting is part of their culture. This has been passed down to them for years. It will be nonsensical to them if the parliament just suddenly bans this long term tradition. Maybe, they see this kind of practice as art because it’s their own culture. But, if they learn about Jintou Dog Meat Festival, they may be opposed to it as well. They may be opposed to the Dog meat festival because they have never experienced it or heard it before. So I think that it all depends on what backgrounds we are from and how we perceive things.