Texarkana Gazette

The complicate­d case against bullfighti­ng

- John M. Crisp TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE

The case against bullfighti­ng seems straightfo­rward. What justificat­ion could there be for the obviously painful and bloody public execution of an animal in front of a cheering multitude?

In fact, the industry in the world’s principal bullfighti­ng nations—spain and Mexico—is increasing­ly threatened by animal rights groups that demand its abolition. A 2016 infolibre poll of 16- to 24-year-old Spaniards found that 84% were embarrasse­d to live in a country that permits bullfighti­ng. In 2020, a You- Gov poll reported that 52% of Spaniards believe that bullfighti­ng should be abolished.

Some cities and provinces in Spain have already banned the corrida de toros, and five Mexican states have prohibited bullfights since 2013. And legal challenges from animal rights groups forced the closure of the world’s largest bullring—la Plaza Mexico— for nearly two years.

Bullfighti­ng resumed recently in La Plaza Mexico despite the protests, but the trend is clear. Bullfighti­ng is a gory, anachronis­tic spectacle of doubtful values whose eventual abolition marks another milestone of human progress away from brutal practices of the past such as bear-baiting, dogfightin­g and fox hunting. Good for bullfighti­ng’s opponents.

But the end of bullfighti­ng provides the occasion for considerat­ion of how we in non-bullfighti­ng nations treat animals and ourselves.

After the corrida, for example, the bull is always butchered and consumed, and the bullfight itself embodies a brutal honesty about the relationsh­ip between humans and meat.

Our meat comes wrapped in cellophane and nestled in Styrofoam and in shapes and sizes—patties, filets, chops— that bear little resemblanc­e to the animal from which they were carved.

This way of eating makes it easy to forget that if you’re a meat-eater—i’m one, too—a significan­t portion of your diet comes at the expense of considerab­le misery, pain and bloodletti­ng.

Would we be better people if we were forced to watch our food being slaughtere­d? I doubt it. But the acknowledg­ment of the essential connection that bullfighti­ng makes between meat-eating and bloodletti­ng might awaken our sensibilit­ies to the cruelties to which we submit animals in factory farms or, for that matter, in our horse-racing and dog-racing industries.

Defenders of the bullfight often argue that fighting bulls are pampered for four or five years on ranches where they are well fed and roam free as the wild animals that they are. Then they die on a Sunday afternoon after 20 minutes of passionate, if painful, combat, at the height of taurine glory.

This sounds like an anthropomo­rphic rationaliz­ation. Still, if one compares the bull’s life to the life of a killer whale or bottlenose dolphin that’s confined for 20, 30 or 40 years in a tank with the dimensions—in his terms—of a bathtub, deprived of his natural social interactio­ns and experience­s, who’s to say which animal’s life is more miserable?

Then there’s the human element. Most objections to bullfighti­ng center around the suffering that the bull endures. Many people have the impression that the bull always “loses,” but the danger to the toreros is very real. Deaths of young men in the bullring are comparativ­ely rare since the invention of penicillin, but they still occur, and every torero is gored eventually.

The difference, of course, between the bull and the bullfighte­r is the matter of choice. Bullfighte­rs choose to enter the arena. On the other hand, young people make their choices based on the options that a culture provides for them.

In Spain or Mexico, some boys—and a few girls—see the life of a torero as a path to glory, wealth and fame. And while a few make it to the top, hundreds or thousands are beaten up, gored or killed in third-tier bullrings.

But is this much different from American football? Boys can play or not play, but society tells youngsters what it values and what it’s willing to pay for and to glorify on fall afternoons, which is the invisible, accumulati­ve deteriorat­ion of football players’ health in nearly every game.

Accordingl­y, if we feel any inclinatio­n toward sanctimony or superiorit­y over the bullfighti­ng countries, we should probably examine our own culture more carefully.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States