The Washington Post reports a comic incident in the Chinese battle for identity that seems more appropriate for a Walker Percy novel than real life: last month a wealthy urbanite forced a delivery van packed with pooches destined for dinner tables off the road and sparked a 15-hour roadside siege between animal rights activists and normal people. Activists declared the incident to be a rousing success, even though it has left a number of the working poor jobless, and has given the activists ample cause to fill their dog-free plates with crow instead:
The debate is the latest sign of China’s rapidly changing mores and culture. For centuries, dog meat has been coveted for its fragrant and unique flavor; it is an especially popular dish in the winter, when it is believed to keep you warm. But pet ownership has skyrocketed in recent years as China’s booming economy produced a burgeoning middle class with both money and time for four-legged friends. And with the new pet stores, a once powerless animal rights movement is slowly gaining traction.
The highway incident has been its biggest success thus far. The mob of dog lovers finally won the standoff by pooling together more than $17,000 to pay off the truck driver. But their victory was quickly eclipsed when they soon realized they had no idea where to house the hundreds of loud, wild and decidedly not housebroken canines.
Even after combining forces, the handful of animal rights groups in the region had trouble handling the overflow from the truck. Most of the dogs they unloaded were strays, and many were dehydrated, malnourished or suffering from deadly viruses. Several have died since the rescue. Dozens this week remained under treatment at animal hospitals around Beijing.
“We are a small organization. We haven’t even tried to pay the animal hospital bills yet,” said Wang Qi, 32, who works at the China Small Animal Protection Association. “There was so much enthusiasm when the dogs were first rescued, but our worry is, what happens now?”
Dog day afternoon, indeed!
June 3rd, 2011 | 2:33 am
Gabriel: I think this particular action taken, may have been poorly planned,and executed. But certainly this group is on the right track. Certainly the eating of dogs, constitutes morally reprehensible behavior.
But what do I know? After all, i’m an animal rights activist, and therefore not normal, according to your post.
If you wish to have a rational, respectful discussion, with animal rights activists, especially ones, like myself, who believe that God wants us to respect the rights of all living creatures, that would be wonderful. My suggestion to you would be, to stop the condescending juxtipostion of “normal people” and “animal rights activists”.
For me, there is no problem being religious, and for animal rights. The only consistent view, is to be against abotion, euthanasia, and killing and exploiting animals.
This incident, is hardly “comic”. It’s a sad reminder that we humans have a long way to go, in treating our fellow God created creatures with respect and dignity.
June 3rd, 2011 | 2:57 am
I will add that, the animal rights group was obviously wrong to do what they did. Their intentions, to help the dogs were right, but the way they did it, was clearly wrong.
In my view, the way to proceed in changing minds, is through peaceful diplomacy.
But you seem to imply that, since these people who exploit and kill dogs for food, are poor, and this gives them employment, it’s justified. Wrong. It’s morally wrong to be involved in the killing of dogs for food.
But I did jump the gun, a little, in my first comments. I didn’t read carefully how the animal rights groups, did this. I totally disagree with what they did. If they used force, or any other forms of violence, that’s morally reprehensible as well.
Animal rights is about peace. And if stopping animal abuses cannot be done peacefully, it should not be done at all.
Fortunately, much progress, for animal rights can be achieved, by convincing others, to support animals.
I have no problem paying, to save these animals. But I totally reject forcing, or other forms of violence, to do this.
This is what concerns me, about the animal rights movement, which I otherwise support: that some elements use violence to achieve their goals. This, just like antiabortion activists, who use violence, is completely morally reprehensible, and has no place in fighting animal abuses.
June 3rd, 2011 | 6:15 pm
I’m with Gabriel. Animal “rights” = confused. If they want to eat dogs, let them eat dogs.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact