DOG FIGHTING

DOG FIGHTING

"The moral progress of a nation can be judged by the way it treats its
animals" - Gandhi

People often claim that we have pit bulls because of dog fighting, and
that pit bulls will not be the same without dog fighting. Many will say
they would never, ever, want their *own* dog to get hurt, but they can
see the historical point of dog fighting.

Can we really trust humanity and its history to make this decisions for
us? Perhaps if people knew some of the social history of the era in
which dog fighting was borne, they would understand it as a symptom of a
social group of cruel and heartless men.

At the time dog fighting was legal in England, it was also legal to beat
your wife and children, to hunt and kill any beast for the sake of
sport, and also legal to import the decapitated heads of Pacific
Islander peoples (Pacific Island natives slaughtered solely for their
heads, not as a result of disease or war) for decoration.

In an era when all game and humans from distant lands can be slaughtered
to decorate some noble Englishman's country home, it's hardly surprising
that dog fighting would be legal. However, even back then it was not
considered a "gentleman's sport" but rather the blood sport of the
wharfies and uneducated farmers of the British Isles. It was a
substitute for the fox hunting and big game hunting the rich could
afford to do.

If a society has not tendered itself to the cruelty of blood sports and
the rich participate in them, of course those in a lower socio-economic
group are going to imitate as best they can and that's what they did
with dog fighting. It was also tolerated because it provided some
financial income for those who had a low income or no other way to
provide for themselves or their family.

Two years after importing human heads became illegal, dog fighting
became illegal in England, and these changes in British law came about
as a result of the first Reform Act of 1832, which William IV at first
opposed. Later, towards the end of his reign, he changed his stance and
adopted several liberal laws which included banning importing human
heads and dog fighting. It was seen at the time as the reformation of a
once well-traveled and worldy man and a pious outcry from that man
repenting for a hard-lived life and the blood shed in England. When
Victoria, his niece, came to the throne in 1838, these laws were further
enforced and have remained to this day. It was also during this era of
bloodshed that the importation of African peoples by the British began
in the United States for the purpose of slavery.

I hope this helps people to understand the mentality and socially
accepted treatment of animals and people at this time in British
history. It is difficult to explain such an evil twist in British
history except a strong Tory/Whig political system bent on extracting
every last pence from any source, regardless of the suffering involved.
Of course, this would spill over into their hobbies and sports. Even
though many think that the Declaration of Independence separated us from
the British Isles, it only did so in law. The British looked upon the
Americas as a new land to colonize and exploit after it was shown to
them that people could actually live here and prosper, and there were as
many British here during our Revolutionary history as there were U.S.
citizens. Did you ever wonder why people would save every last cent and
get on a ship and sail for months with little food in cramped and filthy
conditions to get away from the British? Life had to be pretty difficult
and horrible there for the average person in order to undertake such a
risk for a better life in an unknown country. And of course the British
followed to exploit these colonists.

I have no desire to let such a historical period and group of people
make my decisions for me. Independence in this country is the leftover
symptom of such a cruel time. We have the breed as a result of this time
in history, that is true... but to say that pit bulls will not be the
same without dog fighting parallels saying that those peoples brought
into this country to be exploited and beaten and abused would not be the
same as well. The end doesn't justify the means.

Some people believe that a person who lets his dog fight with another
dog, and gives it vet care afterward, is not an inherently cruel person.
Maybe ignorant, but not sadistic like the person who just lets the dog
stay bleeding or the person who ties a dog to a tree and abandons it, etc.

Dogfighting is cruel - and it's sick. Too bad dogs can't talk. Cruelty
and sadism feel the same to the victim. Cruel means without pity - not
caring about the pain the dog endures from fighting. People seem to
separate the definitions of cruelty and sadism not by the act but by the
actions of the perpetrator after the fact, when sadism cannot exist
without first an act of cruelty. Then they excuse the cruel as ignorant
because he provides medical care. What exactly is he ignorant of? That a
cut and bleeding animal feels pain? Well maybe someone should practice
surgery on him without an anesthetic to enlighten him. I don't need to
know that someone took pleasure or gratification in torturing an animal
for me to think it's cruel and sick and wrong. They are both wrong and
both illegal and the law makes no distinction for psychological
motivation in this area.

Ever notice the similarity in psychosis between a man fighting his dog
and giving it veterinary care and the man who beats his wife then drives
her to the ER? Does that make it any less a crime? It indicates someone
who has no control over their actions and cannot stop himself from
harming others. And they will both look you straight in the eye and say
"I love my wife" or "I love my dog".

These individuals appear to not have the potential to make the decision
to not be cruel and cause harm. Maybe they're addicted and this act
provides some evil to feed their twisted souls. And no, they're most
likely not a "step away" because first they have to acknowledge they are
doing something wrong then seek a way to heal from it, and not many
people have the ability to psychoanalyze and treat themselves and surely
most criminals don't get psychiatric help on their own volition.

Rehabilitating every person who is cruel is not within our reach either
unless we are a professional psychologist or psychiatrist and this
person is willing to change. It is very difficult to reach those who do
not want to be reached. Ironically, this is one of those criminal
activities where most of the perpetrators actually get some of their
kicks seeing us sensitive types cringe.