Posted on 01/17/2002 7:17:24 AM PST by Tai_Chung
Nine months ago, Frame Game grossed out its readers by tackling a mounting controversy in newspapers and state legislatures: the ethics of having sex with dogs. In that column, Frame Game asked "why, if it's wrong to rape animals, it's OK to kill them." Carnivores who ignored this question will now have to confront it. The biggest team sporting event on earth, soccer's World Cup, is coming to South Korea, where hot dogs and doggy bags are all too literal. Those of us who don't take our poodles with noodles will have to think about why, or whether, it's wrong to eat man's best friend.
In case you've been distracted by the war or the recession, here's where the dog fight stands. Dogs are eaten in much of Southeast Asia and part of Switzerland. The South Korean dog meat industry reportedly involves about 1 million dogs, 6,000 restaurants, and 10 percent of the population. French actress-turned-activist Brigitte Bardot, backed by thousands of rabid European and American letter writers, has enlisted FIFA, the world soccer federation, to pressure South Korea to shut down the industry. South Korean lawmakers, angered by this pressure, are pushing to legalize the industry next month. The industry, armed with supportive research by a scholar known as "Dr. Dogmeat," plans to set up dog-meat stands near World Cup stadiums and advertise recipes on English-language Web sites.
On Jan. 14, animal rights activists muzzled the industry's PR campaign kickoff. On Jan. 19, Korean hackers plan to attack the Web sites of French and American media companies that have disparaged canine Seoul food. The controversy has even invaded New York, where lawmakers are considering whether to ban dog meat (which is legal in 44 states) amid reports that it's being sold there. Editorials have expressed disgust at the practice, and Korean-Americans are assuring the public that they, too, find it barbaric. Everybody wants to show that he's civilized by condemning the eating of dogs. There's only one problem: Nobody can explain why it's wrong. In fact, on closer examination, the arguments against dog-eating turn out to be creepier than dog-eating itself.
Let's start with the clearest complaint: the needlessly cruel methods—beating, strangling, boiling—by which many dogs are killed in Korea. To Frame Game, this is a no-brainer. These methods have to be stopped. At a minimum, they should be replaced with electrocution, which is far more humane. That's why South Korean lawmakers are proposing to legalize, license, and regulate the industry. But guess who's trying to stop them? The same attack-dog activists who complain about the cruelty of the old methods.
South Korea's Livestock Processing Act doesn't officially apply to dogs. The obvious solution is to classify dogs as livestock. But in 1999, legislators who tried to do that were thwarted by critics who warned that legalization would hurt the country's image. Now anti-dog-meat activists in Korea, Britain, Australia, and elsewhere are trying to block legalization again, arguing that "there is no recognized humane method of killing" dogs. As a spokesman for the Korea Animal Protection Society put it, "South Korean officials misunderstand the situation. They think it would be okay as long as dogs are not killed in a cruel manner." Given a choice between ending the cruelty and waging their all-out war till the last dog is hung, the activists choose the latter. FIFA, too, opposes legalization—at least until after the World Cup—and calls for a total end to dog-meat consumption.
To justify keeping the industry underground, unsafe, and inhumane, activists ought to have a pretty good reason why dog-eating—as opposed to the eating of other animals, which they tolerate—is too horrible to legalize. But what is that reason? Since dogs aren't smarter or more gentle than pigs, for example, anti-dog-meat activists argue that dogs are special because they're "pets" and "companion" animals. FIFA President Sepp Blatter calls them the "best friend of humankind." Dogs are "friends, not animals," Bardot told a Korean radio interviewer. "Cows are grown to be eaten, dogs are not. I accept that many people eat beef, but a cultured country does not allow its people to eat dogs."
Strip out Bardot's silly arrogance and her Korean colleagues' sentimentality, and their philosophy boils down to this: The value of an animal depends on how you treat it. If you befriend it, it's a friend. If you raise it for food, it's food. This relativism is more dangerous than the absolutism of vegetarians or even of thoughtful carnivores. You can abstain from meat because you believe that the mental capacity of animals is too close to that of humans. You can eat meat because you believe that it isn't. Either way, you're using a fixed standard. But if you refuse to eat only the meat of "companion" animals—chewing bacon, for example, while telling Koreans that they can't stew Dalmatians—you're saying that the morality of killing depends on habit or even whim.
The joke is on you because in Korea, until recently, dogs haven't been pets. Therefore, by the "companion" standard, it's OK to eat them. In fact, the "companion" standard is exactly what South Korean newspapers and government officials are using to justify an emerging system of dog Nazism. In the city, Koreans raise "pet dogs." In the country, they raise "meat dogs," also known as "junk dogs" and "lower-grade" dogs. But you don't become a "lower-grade" dog by flunking an IQ test. You're just born in the wrong place. Then you're slaughtered and fed to a man who thinks he's humane because he pampers a Golden Retriever that has half your brains. And Bardot, who says that cows can be butchered because they're "grown to be eaten," can't fault this arrangement.
If dog-eating isn't intrinsically wrong, why should South Koreans give it up? Because, Bardot told her radio interviewer, "Eating dog meat seriously hurts the image of your country." FIFA President Blatter likewise told South Korea that the practice was bad for its "international image." He urged the country "to show the world that it is sensitive to vociferous worldwide public opinion." But absent an underlying moral argument, appeals to "image" and "sensitivity" are as likely to disguise snobbery or evil as to promote good.
There's more than a whiff of cultural supremacy, if not racism, in French attacks on Korean dog-eating. When Bardot's radio interviewer told her that some Western visitors eat dog meat in Korea, she replied: "French people, German people, and Americans never eat dogs. If they did, it is most likely that South Koreans served them dog meat, saying it was either pork or beef." The French soccer team supports Bardot's campaign. A French state TV channel recently ridiculed Korean dog-eating in a piece full of distortions. Never mind that some Frenchmen eat horse meat or snails or that, according to a Seoul waitress, more than one staffer from the French Embassy has sated his canine tooth at her restaurant. Norwegians didn't stop eating reindeer during the 1994 Lillehammer Olympics. American restaurants didn't stop serving bull testicles during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. No one forced Spain to outlaw cat stew during the 1982 World Cup, and no one is hounding Japan, the co-host of this year's World Cup, to shut down its sushi bars.
Fourteen years ago, when Seoul hosted the Summer Olympics, the dog-meat critics had their day. The South Korean government threw them a bone, banning dog meat under a law prohibiting "foods deemed unsightly." That's the law FIFA now wants South Korea to invoke to sweep away dog-meat restaurants during the World Cup. But unsightliness, by definition, is in the eye of the beholder, and beholders are motivated by prejudice as often as by justice. The last time organizers of a global sporting event removed an "unsightly" presence from their city, that presence was the homeless people of Atlanta. If FIFA and other carnivorous arbiters of civilization want to tell Koreans what to eat, they'll have to come up with a better reason than that.
An old mountain man once told me the difference between what he would and would not eat was about 24 hours...!
My mother-in-law went through the nazi occupation in Norway and spoke of how domestic pets (a rabbit in her case)
became soup for many as things got tighter.
Never say Never, as you don't know the lengths you will need to go to when the rubber meets the road...
Yes, they're not. In some ways, they're better!
It seems to me that South Korea (with a US-style economy) is doing all right.
I determined that I would find one of the places that served dog and try it at least once. Since I'd tried everything else Korean, including those little dried fish and the red-peppered snails, I figured dog would only be fair.
The day came. I had dog. I can describe EXACTLY what it tastes like. Dog owners will know immediately what I'm saying.
Do you know how a dog smells when it comes in from a big rain, soaking wet?
That's PRECISELY how it tastes.
I didn't ask for seconds. I haven't craved more.
Finally, Martha....are you related to Diane Sawyer?
By Professor Yong-Geun Ann, Ph.D. (aka Dr. Dogmeat)
Chungcheong College
Hyo-Il Publishing Company
I wrote this book for two reasons. One is to make known worldwide the history and tradition in which Koreans have eaten dog meat, the various recipes and the traditional concept of dogs and the other is to eliminate the controversy surrounding the edibility of dog meat.
All humans try to improve the environment in which they are placed and enhance the quality of their living, which is the essence of culture. A group or society forms a relatively unique culture thereby outlining its distinctness. But western culture has a strong tendency to dislike the foods of other cultures. It is this prejudice which puts the 'foreign' culture's food in the wrong.
Eating dog meat is Korea's own inherent food culture, which has a long history. Nevertheless, some extremist animal protection groups chastise consumers, threatening them with a campaign to boycott Korean products, even promoting the nonparticipation in the 2002 World Cup. Pros or cons arguments over the edibility of dog meat are rising again since some Koreans who do not like dog meat are voicing their opinions.
The debate over the edibility of dog meat is not worthy of a second thought. The history that Koreans used dog meat as food was originated from such a long time ago long that it cannot be dated back. Koreans have eaten dog meat more than any other. As certain dogs in Korea are raised for domestic consumption, Koreans should not be ashamed due to the misguided views of others.
Giving in to pressure from mostly foreign dissenters, Korea has banned the use of dog meat. In doing so, this has reduced the sovereignty of Korea and what it stands for. That is the revelation of submissive idea under the influence of foreign country to lower ourselves down, having a negative view on dog meat.
The resumption of the controversy over the edibility of dog meat is due to the federal government's tepid attitude. The federal government should allow nationals to slaughter dog and eat it by law, regulating the whole process ranging from breeding to slaughtering, processing, and distribution, and let Koreans eat dog meat without trepidation. Regrettably, the federal government hasn't made any decision on it up to now. It is due to the fact that the government is being pulled in opposing directions with the animal rights activists on one side and the dog meat consumers on the other.
Another important reason is from the fact that country that exports beef to Korea is eager to block the legality of dog meat according to the newly-revised international trade order following the Uruguay Round. The reason is by banning the consumption of dog meat, Korea's importation of foreign beef with increase by the same amount
Basic problem over the edibility issue is left up to Koreans alone. Though government authorities drive dog meat restaurants into the 'underground', many Koreans still enjoy dog meat. Will it be possible for Koreans not to eat dog meat, and will the criticism and attacks cease if government should take measures to ban dog meat? The attitude of feeling shame by eating dog meat, of humbly lowering ourselves, shifts the cause of the problem and only hinders the solution, spoiling our pride.
The only way of solving the problem is to recognize dog meat as a traditional food and develop it further. In many ways, Korea is historically and culturally among the top in the world, but it lacks not only in a firm pride and belief in a traditional culture, but also in a strong will to make it known worldwide. Now, people around the world show a great enthusiasm to the export of their culture. We should be proud and have a belief of what we have. It is required to make various food using dog meat and gourmets should come to Korea to enjoy dog meat. For this, Korea needs to set up a research institute, invest in research, and also breeders of dogs and dog meat restaurant owners should form an association, insisting on their own claims, with the expansion of their interests. By doing so, we should make known worldwide our unique culinary culture of dog meat. Hyo-Il Publishing Company
Address : 254-32 Yongdudong, Tongdaemungu, Seoul, 130-070, R. O. Korea
Tel : (02) 924-6643, 928-6644, Fax: 927-7703
Home page : www.hyoilco.co.kr
Price : 10,000 Won
Pages : 347
From separate page:
2. The love of pet dogs is a true maltreatment of animals
According to the law of the survival of the fittest, the strong and the superior survive. The dog is an animal that had been managing to live for itself, and whose forefather is the wolf and wild dog. From its domestication, the dog has lost its function for survival. The more humans fend for the dog, the more the dog is deprived of its self-reliance. Feeding, loving, vaccinating, and providing it shelter all accelerate in weakening the dog. Moreover, the more a dog is crossbred to make it cute and small, the weaker its adaptability for living becomes. If this is the trend, the dog will come to lose its fighting instinct for living and be weakened; therefore, dogs are completely dependent on humans and can only survive if cared for. The person who demands a pet dog is really being abusive to the dog species as a whole.
The act of taming a dog, cutting and styling its fur, adorning it with clothing, thinking of it as a plaything, and loving it, are forms of mistreatment as well. Such things are not desirable or helpful to a dog. These are things that people are willing to do in their own interest. Even living with a dog is a kind of mistreatment. In some cases a dog is used for protection, but is it the dog owner's intention to keep separated from other humans while living with a dog?
As humans should live among humans, so should dogs.
In reference to this statement, loving dogs is self-complacency, or a sort of mistaken one-sided love towards a dog, and this dysfunctional love weakens the dogs natural instincts. On the other hand, because small and weak dogs are not very useful, the cultures that eat dog meat help to select and maintain the dominant breeds.
The correct way to show love toward the dog is to leave it in its natural state. Leaving it in this condition assures the dog the opportunity to propagate its own breed without the aid of human intervention. Through this process the weak can be naturally weeded out while the strong survive.
When their "US-style economy" grows to where the luxury of dogs as pets becomes common, dogs as food will become as repulsive an idea there as it is here.
Problem is, wherever this occurs, there is the problem of the dogs eating the humans.
Where? Where? Inquiring minds want to know!
The authors point about about moral relativism is right on the money...many Americans own horses and consider them friends or companions...why aren't they attempting to stop the European practice of eating horse-flesh? Maybe they are, but you ain't hearing about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.