For those who are aware of it, this past week (specifically January 14th and 15th) was generally a time for celebration–Thai Pongal Usually, in my own family, this just means pongal rice, a “Happy Thai Pongal, darling!” from various overseas relatives and thus it remains one of those ever-dwindling, absolutely pure links to my childhood. Or so I thought. Another part of the festivities in India, aside from thanking Bhumi Devi for the year’s bounty, involves the snatching of treats and trinkets from the body of a bewildered bull by people one could only describe as foolhardy. In my militant lacto-vegetarian days, quite unaware of the hypocrisy in animal ethics this stance represented, on trips abroad I would often attempt to shame my poor relatives who were trying to enjoy their egg/chicken/mutton in peace. Like the loving relatives that they were, they indulged my illogical rantings and kept on eating the Bambi/Babe/Nemo till the loud belches that signify true satisfaction were heard.
I often equate PETA with the crusader of my childhood, running into any ideological fray with shrill and often crass symbolic protestations of what they see as intolerable injustices. In the case of Jallikattu, however, I’m a bit more charitable towards their latest (via Newstab) stunt: blindfolding a statue of Gandhi in Coimbatore, to shield him from this rather pathetic scene:
To be clear, Jallikattu seems to involve no spears or other sharpened instruments used to slowly break the will of an animal better suited to eating/mating/sleeping than mortal combat and it is also very dissimilar to the American rodeo, where riders attempt to hold on for a few wretched seconds or lasso a smaller animal. It does, however, represent a set of questions for us all:
How effective can Ingrid Newkirk be in influencing the people who enjoy Jallikattu to gradually abandon this practice? I am permanently struck by the parallel of Margaret Sanger getting the semi-cold shoulder from Gandhi and finding a more sympathetic ear in Nehru and Tagore.
What does she think when she sees the villagers shouting and clapping and hopping with glee every time the bull nearly misses a jumki-snatching bravo?
If you disapprove, what organizations in India will stump for the bull? I certainly did not read about the Hindutva crowd running to rescue Nandi-ji from the spectacle or to break Ingrid out of jail.
If you don’t give a toss, or like a good bull-baiting, what’s the utilitarian value that one derives from this practice? There are innumerable adrenaline-generating activities to puff the chest, firm the upper lip and improve the posture that don’t involve a whiff of animal cruelty.
Descriptions of Jallikattu in the western press are beginning to incorporate charges of feeding alcohol to the bulls and introducing chilli powder to various orifices(nose, mouth, ears) in an effort to spice up the baiting. Is there any Jallikattu enthusiast who can verify this?
Personally, I hold no great love for the baiting of animals for sport/kicks/reaffirming your place in the food chain. I would be far more impressed if the participants were tangling with a Belgian Blue, an Elephant or Tatiana. But then, of course, there would have been far too many human deaths for the activity to be ongoing and popular.
i think you put this very well. both observations are spot-on. at the same time, though, i think there are many whose distaste for jallikattu may come from not cultural distaste, but from using an animal in a way that seems completely avoidable. it’s safe to venture, i think, that jallikattu is not something that the bull “enjoys” (of course, the empirical question of whether bulls can “enjoy” in the first place remains to be answered. we have very little concrete data on animal intelligence, and still less, about how much “emotion” they can feel). i do not think i am opposed to animals being kept humanely until they are butchered for food or(i’m a vegetarian myself; although, probably for my own sake rather than that of the animals) or clothing, or used as beasts of burden where no other option is available.
If you haven’t, to en light yourself a bit more about jallikattu do have a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallikattu
I think you should also add
or used in “jallikattu”
Comeon, you make so many exceptions, why not add one more, atleast in this case the animal is not killed and treated with respect before and after the game. 🙂
Thank You Rajaraja Cholar avargale:)
portmanteau,
Distaste for jallikattu based on hearsay and reports rather than first hand experience is not very useful. If you have any experience of the rural ethos in India, you would know that cattle are treated as part of the family, as good or as bad as the rest of the family. If you eat pongal, then you share that with your cattle. If you have a little toddy for celebration, then you share it with your cattle as well as your deity. They do not debate about animal intelligence and emotion, they accept that they have them, albeit like children they need to be guided. They do not believe like Kant and the rest of the west that man is supreme and God has given him control over the animals. They live out interdependence and harmony with cattle and other animals and with nature traditionally. It is a different thing when they get divorced from this agrarian rural ethos. So when Pongal comes around every year the farmer rejoices for the bountiful harvest, shares it with his cattle (including pongal and sugarcane) after bathing them, painting their horns and smearing them with colors, has fun and games that includes the cattle with only some bulls (the strong silent types) getting the privilege of being part of manju virattu or jallikattu and get to tango with some youngsters (the strong and boisterous types). Once the show is over these bulls get more treats and care for the rest of the day, until it is back to the business of ploughing or pulling a cart or impregnating the neighborhood cows. For people divorced from this agrarian lifestyle of mutual interdependence and everyday existence with their cattle, the idea of jallikattu in the abstract maybe distasteful, but is misplaced.
An example of the difference in treatment of “high culture” and “low culture’. Just two weeks ago, 3 software professionals in Chennai were killed in a New year’s eve party (a new tradition of late)
.. CHENNAI: The death toll in the stage collapse accident at Hotel Savera on the New Year eve rose to three with two youth, including a woman, succumbing to injuries at a private hospital here on Monday.
A 24-year old software professional Sumith Agnihotri died on Tuesday, hours after the collapse of the stage made of wooden planks on which several people were dancing. Many of them fell into the swimming pool, atop which the stage was constructed.
On Monday, the police also arrested the licensee of the hotel B. V. S. Reddy and produced him before a city court, which released him on bail.
We don’t see calls for banning the “new year parties” because apparently they reflect the “civilized culture” of the urban youth compared to the “primitive culture” of the rural youth.
This is very true. And if you are familiar with the practice, you also know that young men (and the not so young) jeopardize their lives and livelihoods in a dubious show of machismo; that they are given incentives of gold coins and television sets, but most walk away with steel cookware and lungis; that corporate sponsors like Pepsi and MediMix sponsor the event; that most of the people who are injured are not participants but spectators who flood the corridor; and that the injuries really gruesome–lost eyes and ears, severe head and chest trauma, and occasional death.
For your viewing pleasure … from 1959
Kant’s ideas are only interesting in that they present a case for respecting souless (i.e. from the Christian perspective) creatures, I don’t feel the West has anything to offer Indians regarding the treatment of animals (people yes, but animals an emphatic no). I can tell you that among farming communities, a man who is cruel to his animals is perceived as bad natured and not a good match for matrimony etc. Jallikattu is worth critiquing, but I have to wonder about Newkirk/PETA’s priorities. It seems like she wanted an India boondoggle considering how even with its excesses (e.g. enraging the animal with pepper) jallikattu is pretty low on the list of outrages against animals both in the extent of the cruelty and number of animals impacted. I’m more concerned about the public safety angle now that this is drawing larger crowds, it’s only a matter of time before some 5 year old gets trampled to death. I am far more concerned about the treatment of Hindu/Buddhist temple elephants, who don’t have anything approaching a natural life with exercise or companionship, and would like to see temple patrons in India & SE Asia bring this up with temple boards
Well said. Is the temple elephant phenomenon even on PETA’s radar?
Given that a couple of billion animals are probably slaughtered for food each year over the world, most, I’d wager, in less than humane circumstances, focusing on a few dozen bulls who don’t even get killed, seems almost perverse from a statistical point of view.
I’ve heard of local efforts in India & Thailand by practicing Hindus and Buddhists. If PETA or their Westernized Indian local members, who are usually hostile to religion and completely unaware of the local ethical traditions favoring animal rights, it will become performance art without impact
56 preston,
All true, especially for the high profile jallikattus like the one in Alanganallur. But that is something that can be fixed with regulation rather than a ban, which would stigmatise the whole tradition.
paamaran, this is a disingenuous line of argumentation. it is great that you know a lot about rural tamil nadu (knowledge that i do not have), but one can’t make ethical claims of the sort that the treatment of bulls is acceptable as long as they are treated as any other member of the family (ie given affection). people love their daughters: feed them, give them affection, and educate them; but it would still be right to criticize a loving father if he told his daughter that she was never as good as a boy. for instance, i’ve seen some mutineers criticize strict interpreters of the quran who place restrictions on the way their female relatives dress, or cultures which practice female circumcision. i don’t think anyone disagrees that those on whom cultural restrictions are placed are not loved their families, but we might still stay the culture’s moral stance regarding certain issues are wrong. also, preston thanks for correcting the romanticized description of jallikattu 🙂 i, of course, had no idea; ignorant city-girl that i am 😉
second, i’m not sure this dubious trope of eastern and western moral notions that has come up on this thread is accurate. everywhere in the world you see strains of though that advocates loving and/or ethical treatment of animals (the bishnois, jains, certain strains of buddhists, st. francis of assisi, gandhi, contemporary thinkers like tom regan and peter singer, vegan punk), and everywhere in the world we see terrible treatment of animals. i respectfully disagree with the statement that “the West has anything to offer Indians regarding the treatment of animals,” because it seems close-minded to me. I do not sympathize much with the publicity-focused tactics of PETA which have come to symbolize the animal-rights movement in the US, but I feel there is much to learn from people who write about applied ethics. btw, Kant’s ethical framework may be allied with some Christian thought but it derives most force from the concept of doing one’s duty (interestingly similar to Hindu concept of “karma”). This duty has little do with religious affiliation or even God, and as he conceives these duties to be categorical imperatives, they are universally applicable and ought to be obeyed, even if they conflict with religion.
I think the comparisons of jallikattu to clubbing etc. are not exactly analogous because the high risk to life and limb for the playing humans are the primary reasons for the excitement of jallikattu, and it is an anticipated, and very high probability event that animals are going to be severely injured in the process. Probably more analogous, if you ignore the very different moral status that society usually confers on harm to humans and animals, is football, given the increasing evidence of severe brain damage to players, or worse, boxing. I am also not especially moved by arguments defending it as acceptable because the sport is “part of rural culture”.
That said, while this is a fight that PETA might want to get into, because of their (unseemly) obsession with sensationalism and grandstanding, it is probably not worthwhile because jallikattu is an occasional event, not a daily occurrence or indication of culture, and because PETA’s involvement raises the distracting issue of “western hegemony over uncultured natives” that some of the comments brings up. PETA’s attentions are probably more profitably directed towards urban areas where there is palpably poor treatment of beasts of burden, which perennially look emaciated and on the verge of dropping dead. (A zero sum argument is probably justifiable here given the limited interest and attention current society pays to animal rights).
It always amuses me how offended people are about Michael Vick’s dogfighting, while condoning the horrible abuse of livestock and poultry so that the cost of milk, meat and eggs is $0.50 lesser and they can enjoy delicious veal on their plates, and appreciating the glamor of horse racing, which consistently breeds extremely fragile horses designed for speed, causing a large number of injuries and mercy killings (of course, accompanied by tender eulogies).
It would be interesting if a reporter would ask local women–wives, mothers, and daughters–what they thought of Jallikattu.
sorry, this should read:
“i respectfully disagree with the statement that “the West [does not] has anything to offer Indians regarding the treatment of animals,” because it seems close-minded to me.”
Paamaran @ 47:
Well said! Banning the event will bring nothing good. It will probably end up in “Don’t tell us what to do with our culture” sentiment similar to those days when Hindi was imposed. Today, after 30 years, Hindi is taught as second language in many schools and significant percentage of Tamilians speak Hindi. If the ban argument is renewed in future, people will just ignore it. Enforcing safety measures and providing emergency medical care is a better way to improve the event.
parthiban kanavu @ 57: Thanks for posting the video link – brought back memories of watching Shivaji in a good old village theater.
53 · Ponniyin Selvan said
maybe you can come to the dark side, where arguments are nuanced, and statements are qualified.
comparing new year parties (highly unlikely that dancing on wooden planks qualifies as “high culture” anyway) to jallikattu was a great call. i’m sure people who think of rural culture as low-culture are very happy when a wooden platform on which villagers are dancing in praise of their local deity collapses. ms. skimpy-dress citygirl and mr. cellphone-brandishing metrosexual urge the government to ban worship and temples, and promptly go back to their PDA in the club.
rahul, you assume that there exist no radical vegans who condemn Michael Vick 🙂 the vast majority of people who do think Vick’s acts are reprehensible do not consume foie-gras or go to the Kentucky Derby or wear funny hats at Ascot (they are, however, probably largely meat-eating). A reason why meat-eaters (your everyday meat and potatoes person) might find dogfighting is problematic is that it uses animals for amusement (an avoidable activity), rather than for more “legitimate” uses like food and farm-labor. Also, the cute and cuddly factor wrt dogs makes dog-fighting appear so much more vicious.
Kant is not relevant to most of the West. That he is revered by arts grads and some theologians means little to Western popular culture. My childhood American Catholic friends, and yes even the local priest, would question vegetarianism quoting scripture suggesting man’s lordship over animals. The belief of Hindus and Buddhists, putting aside Jains for the moment, that killing is karmically damaging has lead to a situation where meat consumption is limited beyond what you would expect based on food economics. We, as probably did pre-Christian West, have a basic folk belief in the ensoulment of animals. What utility does Kant have from this starting point? It’s only neuroscientists and some philosophers who warn against anthropormorphizing animals by suggesting they have feelings/emotions (odd since most of them also view man as just machine). The Indian man on the street, assuming that he is not a sociopath, has a belief in karma, that animals are ensouled and does not question animal emotion. So what foreign ideas are needed for an internal critique of jallikattu? I’m not closed minded about the West’s virtues, if you read my comment you will see that I say that the West has much to offer India wrto the treatment of humanity
This came out wrong. I don’t mean to suggest that if you doubt karma that you are a sociopath. I mean to say that if you doubt the ability of other beings to experience pain, you quite likely are a sociopath.
louiecypher, what did art grads and pomona students ever do to you?
I just see in them my future, ungrateful children brainwashed by V. Prashadian & Priyamvada Gopalian nonsense. That’s why I sometimes advocate a period of Indian manifest destiny against countries like Bangladesh and Malaysia. I want my future Bennington/Pomona brats to be inheritors of real, hard earned guilt just like rich white people have
Thanks (Nandri) for the explanation. (you don’t take after your name…. 😉
My only experience of jallikattu is from watching Tamil movies and my own reaction to the sport has invariably been one of condescension. A whataboringfuckofasport/hero/movie reaction, if you must know. Then again I am city girl from S’pore and that’s a perfectly normal reaction from one such as I ! Even my TN village relatives- there are droves of them- haven’t been jallikattu enthusiasts and it really has not poppped up on my radar before now. It was truly a surprise to read about the Supreme Court’s initial ban on the sport, brought about through the activism of the Animal welfare Board of India (this is presumed from the rather scanty reporting on events prior to the ban). The AWB is a govt setup, headquartered in Chennai.
Now I fully understand there are many reasons to decry jallikattu – some animal cruelty, safety and law and order issues- but like Paamaran, my reading of the matter is that a soft target was picked, a bunch of country yokels who were expected to accept a ban without demur and there seems to have been little done by either the state authorities or the AWB to regulate the sport or educate those involved. It appears arrogant and unfair to apply for an outright ban in the absence of such. The AWB seems a rather strange beast too, in that it applied for a ban on cow slaughter in TN in 2004, a move which seems aimed at christian and muslim minorities in the state. It also seems a somewhat over-zealous censor if this report is to believed :
http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movie-news/dec-07-03/16-12-07-mirugam.html
That said, a section of the Indian elite (if the Hindu and NDTV speak for a section of such an elite, another odd thing is that PETA is a very popular charity with quite a few Bollywood/Kollywood stars) appears extremely discomfited by jallikattu and the controversy is definitely homegrown, Newkirk’s antic notwithstanding. The dispute is likely to continue but that is not an entirely bad thing. This time round, some stringent animal welfare measures have been ordered by the SC under the watch of the AWB and the villagers have probably learnt not to take anything for granted, not even 400 year old traditions.
I must note that the blogger, Nayagan, seems to have a chip on both shoulders and has been incredibly rude and patronising to a couple of commenters above. What’s happening with Sepia mutiny’s much vaunted good manners?
63 portmanteau,
Let me steer the discussion back to the bulls involved in jallikattu and their treatment, since that is what seems to be distasteful to you, although in #49 you also say the following.
Jallikattu is not a religious ritual, it is a traditional rural sport, that happens once a year during Pongal in mid January.
In #51 you say the following.
Let me quote a rhetorical statement from a villager from a news article covering the earlier Supreme Court ban on this practice.
From: Tamil Nadu Villagers Sore at Bull-Run Ban
65 preston,
For what it is worth, here is what one woman thinks, from the same report linked above.
Also from the report btw, the ban was crusaded by Blue Cross of India and the Animal Welfare Board.
Take it up with management–i’m only a guest, not a fixture. Or, you could take the time to write your own post(but Miss Mannering my responses takes far less time!). Whichever route that will best maintain your calm. It would help if the critics wouldn’t find it convenient to question my credibility while posing their disagreements–that sort of argumentation is not desirable.
desirable: “I think this argument is wrong because xxxx.”
undesirable: “I think this argument is wrong and you don’t know anything. I don’t feel the need to supply anything resembling reason to support my views.”
I am glad that more reasonable voices and view points have been raised in the past few posts than the ones raised on the initial post. For the sake of clarity, I would like to look at jallikattu on the following lines:
jallikattu as seen from the eyes of the Bulls, or those who strongly empathize with Bulls:. a) Bulls feel pain and fear. So they should not be subject to Jallikattu as it torments them b) Bulls feel pain, fear and also aggression. Since aggression is something that they probably enjoy, there is nothing wrong in making them aggressive, if it overrides their pain.
jallikattu as seen from the eyes of the people who practice it: a) It is an ancient Tamil tradition, that is being practiced since time immemorial (or 400 yrs, based on what you want to believe). Others (courts, laws, non Tamils, urbans.. basically anyone who does not agree with it) have no right to impose their laws and moralities on us. Especially when they practice their own discriminations by eating meat, making sacrifices, following caste/race discriminations etc. b) It is so much fun, and animals are meant to be used by humans. I don’t care for the historical/ moral reasons. I do it because it is such a fun thing to do. Those who oppose it do not understand it…
jallikattu as seen from the eyes of the people who don’t practice it a) Animals are meant to be used by humans, there is nothing wrong as it is the law of nature for the strong to rule the weak. b) It is wrong as the animals are tormented. However, human considerations/rights are most important. If they enjoy it, they should be allowed to practice it, as it would be against their tradition/free will to stop them. c) It is wrong to torment animals, irrespective of traditions or free will. Humans have no right to torment animals. However, people should be told that it is not right, and no restrictions should be placed on their actions, as it could be counter productive. d) It is wrong to torment animals. Humans will not understand this as they are genetically conditioned to be violent/selfish. A combination of laws/restrictions and education should be used to stop this.
In one of my earlier posts I mentioned that my position on this issue was complex. The reason is that my position is a combination of 1.b and 4.c and 4.d.
19 · Radhika said
I TOTALLY meant that in a sarcastic manner. My bad, people.
paamaran
hear hear.
ponniyin selvan
agreed again.
ingrid should have steered clear of this (t)horny problem. now we have more humps to work around.
Are you saying she’s an oxy-moron?
Beware, lc. Karma might bring to you an early middle age filled with mid afternoon departures from your deskjob to hear your children, who are frittering away their twenties hugging whales to save them from Inuit harpoon tips, share their compulsion with a sympathetic listener who offers his services of folded arms, pursed lips, and a well-appointed couch at many hundred dollars an hour.
77 should be “my position is a combination of 1.b and 3.c and 3.d
This is a grey area. The Alanganallur event is celebrated under the auspices of the local temple. In fact all the steel cookware given as prizes, hundreds of pieces, is collected as a temple offering and then redistributed as prizes. Jallikattu itself may not be a religious festival, but religious practice has been incorporated into it.
The other thing to think about is that the big events make a lot of money. They attract corporate sponsorships; participants pay entry fees; vendors of every type of food, drink and trinket descend on the town; VIPs pay for VIP seats in the VIP viewing gallery; tour companies round up the tourists from hotels in Madurai and bus them to the site. It’s a huge gathering of people in the countryside and big boon for the rural economy. Alanganallur has a festival committee to deal with all this stuff.
So on one level it’s an ancient cultural practice. On another, in some instances, it’s a fully modern commercial endeavor.
Jallikattu is celebrated in lots of different places in Tamil Nadu, not always a huge event. In some towns it’s just a line of villagers and a few bulls. At Alanganallur, it’s the big show–a hundred or so bulls, run from dawn to dusk. They have come from all over southern Tamil Nadu to compete, often walked by their owners.
Nayagan, you replied to Pnniyin selvan who rather neutrally brought up your glaring errors – JVP!- in your post with a nasty insinuation that he is a hindu fundie and followed that up with a far more unpleasant and unwarranted baiting – re the fgm ‘question’ and an unfounded assertion about him protesting dalits killing cows. A bigger man would have thanked him after correcting the post and would have certainly offered an apology for the subsequent insults.
Then 50 cents comes along with a perfectly sane observation that Newkirk’s motives cannot be dismissed out of hand and you are so gratuitously rude with : Do you know what the meaning of the word “apparent” is or are you too lazy to look it up?
It is the sheer unnecessity of it all – from the references about Newkirk ‘flapping her gums'(such elegance of expression!) to your incredibly presumptive lecture to me on the rules of proper argument and the use of ad homs (that after namecalling me!) – that irritates the hell out of me. I do hope you don’t become a fixture!
This is a bogus argument. Suffering cannot be justified by the fact that we have an economic system that predicates the very existence of these animals purely on the basis that they suffer.
Jallikattu is cruel to bulls, and probably should not exist “in an ideal world” (I am less sympathetic to the humans who have agency and consciously choose to risk injury or death in pursuit of glory). Trying to ban it is probably not a worthwhile fight, though, given that it is not a routine occurrence, and there are far more egregious instances of animal abuse.
I do not understand your point. Are you implying that the AWB is pro Hindu because of their anti-cow slaughter position? If anything, their taking up cudgels against jallikattu, which is tied to temple ceremonies, shows that not to be the case. You might make the claim that their concerns are misplaced, but that’s a different issue, isn’t it?
Matt Scully, who is an evangelical Christian and a speechwriter for Bush, did make the counter-argument in his book Dominion, that this lordship actually implies a greater responsibility of kindness of man towards animals. This is probably still a fringe opinion, but just as there is increasing momentum towards environmental responsibility in the “compassionate” evangelical Christian community, it is conceivable that animal cruelty/rights become more of a religious issue in the future.
i really wonder whether the people who are outraged by these ‘cruelties’ have ANY perspective of life and the living of those they are seeking to mold. it isnt just the matter of a difficult existence in a harsh land for which one needs to take animal lives to survive. the psychological well-being of a people is resident on their abilities to practice their native customs. it is vain for any external body to swoop in and cast moral judgement. in this case what is ingrid proposing that should replace this custom? should the villagers start playing cricket, or may be she is going to distribute Wii players with a JalliKattu game. I hope she gets run out of town and takes the local peta chapter with her.
This debate is not new or local to india. Here’s what cbc’s rex murphy had to say on the greenpeace protests against seal hunts in newfoundland. (This is from 1976 btw). It gets progressively interesting. I cant transcribe it all, but here’s a little piece I liked. He had some choice words for the likes of Candice Bergen, Brigitte Bardot and Greenpeace.
It’s a huge gathering of people in the countryside and big boon for the rural economy. Alanganallur has a festival committee to deal with all this stuff.
Undoubtedly, the very fact that it helps the local economy is a reason to not ban it but to regulate it, given that some economic leverage aka armtwisting can be applied. Though I can understand how the threat of a ban looming can wonderfully concentrate some otherwise intransigent minds.
Are you implying that the AWB is pro Hindu because of their anti-cow slaughter position? If anything, their taking up cudgels against jallikattu, which is tied to temple ceremonies, shows that not to be the case.
Those 3 incidents were the sort of things the AWB has been in the news for , I found at least two of them rather suspect and am implying that the AWB chooses soft targets and has a habit of outplaying its hand. Jallikattu may have been incorporated into temple thiruvillas, but it is not a part of orthodox hinduism per se, and I need not tell you how snobbish and condescending some hindus can be to those they consider lesser beings than themselves.
I have never, ever, questioned the commitment of Alicia Silverstone.
It is my sense that most meat eaters in the US would not think twice about eating foie gras or veal, although I do agree that there is some awareness about foie gras now. As for horse racing, I would be surprised if Joe Q. Public, while sentimentally lighting candles for Barbaro’s broken leg, thinks it is cruel that a system rewards and encourages the breeding of animals that are highly susceptible to those kinds of fatal injuries. It is just that the cruelties of factory farming and horse racing are shielded enough from the public, that they don’t need to feel morally responsible for condoning these atrocities.
I think that cuteness as a foundational block for a moral calculus is amusing.
I agree with your point, I think that the people who express horror at Vick’s behavior do not consider themselves hypocritical or inconsistent in the least. Anyways, that is probably a discussion for another thread, I didn’t bring up my point to make any sort of comparison between America and India, but just to make the point that social attitudes towards animals don’t encourage us to think too hard about our stances, and it leads to a lot of inconsistencies in our reactions.
Yes.. unlike those who live in the west, who buy their meat in Styrofoam packets , many of us who grew up/live predominantly in India, see the animal abuses and the abusers every day.
Partially agree. I challenge you to use the same argument for genital mutilation and stoning to death. I know some of you might find this comparison outrageous. But we are talking about customs here…
Again partiallty agree. However, who is the external body? Your wife? Brahmin neighbour? The panchayat? The Government? Courts? PETA?
So if I oppose the custom of feeding the christians to the lions, do I need to provide Hindus as substitute.
If the acts of violence is against seals, then the code is wrong.. But is it is against say native americans, the code is right?
Look, using animals and humans interchangeably in moral discourse may seem quite outrageous by western sensibilities. But for many Indians (including those who eat meat) it is logical. Guess what.. even the science seems to agree with this notion, when it talks about evolution..
I never knew about this custom…looks pretty cool to me.
Can you explain the nuances in your statement?. You know, English is not my “native” language and English is the one subject I fared poorly in school.
I’d ask a few questions, say yes or no. no more nuances. avoid double negatives (or orwellian newspeak. 🙂 )
Please answer yes or no to the questions above, (if you do not like it this way, rephrase in simple words so that dummies can understand and then answer yes or no).
I assumed that your answers to the above 3 questions are “yes” and asked you to add “jallikattu” to the list of things you supported since no other option is available as of this moment. Is there anything wrong with the suggestion?.
69 · louiecypher said
<
blockquote>We, as probably did pre-Christian West, have a basic folk belief in the ensoulment of animals. What utility does Kant have from this starting point? It’s only neuroscientists and some philosophers who warn against anthropormorphizing animals by suggesting they have feelings/emotions (odd since most of them also view man as just machine). The Indian man on the street, assuming that he is not a sociopath, has a belief in karma, that animals are ensouled and does not question animal emotion. So what foreign ideas are needed for an internal critique of jallikattu?
beginning around hobbes, “western” ethical theory began to provide secular arguments about how we should treat beings with moral status, i.e. people and animals. you mention that indian theories about ethical treatment of animals hinge on ensoulment; as far as i know no convincing evidence about the soul exists within what you might call mainstream metaphysics. i believe that laws and public policy should depend on arguments that do not depend on religious doctrine. it’s great that many in india think that animals have souls, and should therefore, be treated “humanely.” this way of thinking might help people make personal moral decisions, but it doesn’t look like the right way to decide questions for the entire society. using religious ethics, to make policy decisions, laws, and broader prescriptions for society does not seem acceptable to me. just as it is wrong for catholics to use the ensoulment argument to urge the state to ban abortion, just as it is wrong for Bush to allocate PEPFAR funds based on pre-conditions set by evangelicals, it is also unacceptable to say that indian law and public policy should use scriptures as guides for public prescriptions. people like kant, bentham, singer, and regan provide a non-religious (singer for instance, uses a lot of empirical evidence to stake his position) framework for thinking about duties towards animals or thinking about creatures which are not quite human but have indeterminate moral status (intelligent animals, severely brain-damaged infants, fetuses, and not-so intelligent animals). i cannot think of any contemporary indian metaphysicists or ethicists that write about this, and the folk thinking that does not employ anthropomorphic and/or religious justification for the moral treatment of animals. so i do think that lots of people in india will have a lot to learn from and contribute to the debates in secular ethical frameworks. also, i find it ironic that, you, who poke fun at poor pomona humanities grads, at every opportunity think that invoking the ensoulment argument is an adequate moral theory that will produce a broadly acceptable account of the ethical treatment of animals.
very few mainstream philosophers, psychologist, or neuroscientist hold this view. dualism, ie the descartes-ghost-in-the-machine account stands largely discredited for a very long time. like a hundred years maybe.
i’m sorry. no wonder you have a hard time coming up with the right analogies. although i fear that has something to do with a grasp of logic as well.
i’d say something; but besides being orwellian, i’m also passive-aggressive. i will go to many lengths to avoid confrontation. it is best for my sanity that i not say anything more to you on this thread. so long, and thanks for the grammar tip. PS: Mutineers and moderators, sorry for being ad hominem here, but my feelings have been hurt 🙂 by the newspeak insinuation.
Why would you be ‘sorry’ that English is not his native language? Is that a pitiable state in your view?
R-dawg, that will sound more convincing to me when you tear yourself away from the alicia silverstone ad 🙂 my comment was implying the same thing, btw.
94 · Amitabh said
I said that in context of his doing badly in the subject while in school. Thanks, though, for picking that up, and making me clarify.
If I’m not mistaken the music accompanying the youtube video is from Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring” (whose story involves the sacrifice of something — man or beast I am not sure). Quite appropriate in the context of this Spring sacrificial rite from Tamilnadu.
About the practice, yes it sounds quite cruel, but part of me is amused by just how badass a tradition it is. Bet you can’t beat it northies; and don’t tell me about your bhaang-drinking during holi. It doesn’t come close.
yeah, that’s a nuanced way to bail out. That’s fine. 🙂 For all your talk about nuances you failed to get the direct analogy. I think maybe you need a nuanced analogy too.
This argument doesn’t make sense to me; are you saying that bulls/cows have the capacity to voluntarily and knowingly get drunk and then voluntarily put pepper up their noses? The “safety” argument seems to be the least important, really. I am totally unfamiliar with jallikattu, but this doesn’t sound like kabaddi; it sounds more analogous to the running of the bulls.
Rahul, Jamie Oliver just did a gruesome week=long series on poultry a short while ago. Super ick.
WHAA? Food, clothing, shelter, and jalikattu are now the basic necessities of mankind?