‘Eugenics’ has a negative meaning. If you do not know the story behind the concept, you’ll soon understand why this is.
To cut a long story short, and to highlight the core of the Eugenics movement, all you need to know is that it started at the end of the 19th century and is related to the inheritance of human characteristics. Scientists came up with the theory that human traits are hereditary. That not only your appearance, but even your behaviour is dependent on your ancestors.
The industrial revolution and further elements boosted urbanisation which led to the rising crime rate. And if it was true that deviant behaviour could be inherited, it seemed to be a really effective method to control human-related social problems.
Human pedigrees and birth control gained popularity very rapidly. By birth control, I mean the possibility of legislation to enforce compulsory sterilisation of those citizens whose reproduction could have produced offspring with undesirable traits which would therefore have had a negative effect on society.
The selective ‘mating’ of humans based on the Eugenics movement became extremely popular both in the UK and the USA at beginning of the 20th century. Until one crucial point was reached. Everything changed overnight when nations realised that the basic idea of the movement had become the founding principle of Nazi Germany.
When I first saw the pictures of the PETA protestors at Crufts 2018, I didn’t really care. So what if it had happened again? They do this repeatedly. It’s just the same old story, same old propaganda template. It’s old news. A few articles in major magazines against pedigree dogs, and if they can get hold of a pass to the arena, then they will plan an invasion.
But when I realised the message of all this fuss, I had a 100% WTF moment.
So, what are they protesting against, and what was the message of this incident that dominated all the tabloid and mainstream media?
Eugenics means selective breeding, if you simplify the basic concept. So, would they like breeders to stop mating dogs based on a concept? Do they just want a mating to happen without any control at all? Or in the case of a dog possessing genetically inherited dominant gene mutations, is it wrong that they should be banned from further breeding, because after all, that would be selective breeding?
The opposite of Canine Eugenics would mean something that happens at puppy farms or through backyard breeding. Is that really what the protestors under the banner of PETA are calling for in their current campaign?
Eugenics has a really negative connotation based on historical facts. But this is not a well-chosen slogan for the current propaganda as it is a completely incomprehensible nonsense when put into the context of dogs. Moreover, to use the same principle for both humans and dogs is absolutely impossible in the current era.
Come on, guys! You did a much better job with the ‘Mutts against Crufts’ slogan some years ago. This year’s catch-phrase was clearly not a good choice at all.
Certainly, it wasn’t only the downgrading of Crufts to the level of ‘Canine Eugenics’ (regardless of what that means) that was on PETA UK’s agenda this year. Early in the afternoon of the same day, The Independent published an article about all the health problems of pedigree dogs.
And the day after the Crufts incident, PETA UK confirmed their support for the two protestors based on even more reasons.
These are the health issues of purebred dogs and the homeless animal crisis which is exacerbated by Crufts (besides calling for a boycott for Channel 4 as the final solution to save dogs from suffering).
To go deep into the purebred-crossbred health debate would require far more time than I have here, so I can’t go into the topic fully, but perhaps I can leave you with just one thought: if you are talking about the state of any particular breed’s health, then please distinguish between professional legitimate breeders, puppy farms, and backyard breeders as breeders of dogs. There is indeed a huge difference, and for many reasons.
I would really like to see PETA protesting at the household of Joe Bloggs for breeding purebred dogs without no knowledge or understanding concept, but just to have some pocket money.
And if we are talking about the homeless animal crisis, I’ve already stated my point of view about the correlations and causative relations concerning the overpopulation of dogs. As that is also not a simple topic, that too required a whole book to cover the topic adequately.
But to make it clear, boycotting Channel 4 and Crufts will not really help all those dogs which are bought on the Internet or from puppy farms, as dictated by current trends or just so you can be like John Snow from Game of Thrones.
This year’s ‘campaign’ was really successful for PETA, it was in the news everywhere. Crufts is popular, watched and followed by many millions worldwide, and definitely the centre of attention in the media, even without any incidents.
To make a noise while an event is being broadcast is a very simple way to get your message across, even a simplistic one with no easy solution, and as a general communication tool, it can be really effective.
Noise gains attention. However, it does not mean you are automatically right just because you are very loud. Especially when you are using ridiculously oversimplified concepts when the overall picture is far more complex than that.
I would honestly like to experience the same fiery enthusiasm protesting against puppy farms, irresponsible backyard breeding, pups to be picked up on Facebook, or when other animal welfare organisations derail bans on selling dogs in pet shops.
Oh wait, but with that isn’t it that simple to gain so much attention that quickly?
But maybe you tried that and found that didn’t work either?
Sorry to say this, but aren’t these the same oversimplified problems you talk about every year when it’s Crufts time?
Image: Dreamstime
No comments:
Post a Comment