|
On August, 2009, a post on blog called Ask a Korean appeared in support of dog meat eating. It was written by a Korean American called T. K. Park, who oddly refers to himself in the third person as "the Korean" and who likes to see himself as an authority on all things Korean. As such, he invites people to ask him questions that he replies to on his blog. But what are his credentials as an authority on Korea? First, he lived in Korea as a kid for 16 years, and second, he just says so.
Together with his dubious credibility, it should be noted that Park does not speak for all Koreans. His rambling apologetics for dog meat eating is not what all Koreans would agree with and does not reflect what they think. So a response was needed, and not simply to clarify this last point but also because Park and his attitude are just too obnoxious to ignore. This response also applies to those who commented on Park's blog in support of his unsophisticated world view and who are obviously guided by similar personal and cultural prejudices.
Park starts out by reiterating some basic facts on dog meat eating, attempting to establish some credibility, but then his mild approach degenerates into an opinionated and ignorant rant. To get an idea of what we are dealing with, let's skip to opening remarks about putting dogs through severe deprivation and abject cruelty their whole lives then killing them, sometimes with extreme brutality, and eating them. If you disagree with this practice,
the Korean has only this to say: please, go fuck yourself. Seriously, please remove yourself from the Korean’s vicinity and give yourself a handjob.
There, in a nutshell, is T. K. Park for you--opinionated, dismissive, an arrogant know-it-all.
Given that Park says he left Korea at 16, you might believe that was fairly recently, judging by the content of his post. But no, his profile indicates he's been in the US for a while and so has obviously assimilated some of the backward attitudes and cliches of American anti-intellectualism.
Basically, Park organizes his support for dog meat eating to fit his world view. Necessarily, not much time is spent dwelling upon the cruel and barbaric aspects of the Korean dog meat industry. This is because Park does not care about animals very much, as we shall see.
Before we get to where he starts imposing his parochial opinions, as if he speaks for all Koreans, he cites a year 2000 survey:
83 percent of Koreans (91.9 percent of males and 67.9 percent of females) have eaten dog meat. 86.3 percent of Koreans favored eating dog meat (92.3 percent of males and 72.1 percent of females).
These are incredibly high numbers that immediately create doubt and the survey looks dubious. Anyone could have written it and said whatever they wanted. If it is real, it might have been conducted on a sidewalk outside a dog meat restaurant. If we are just grabbing opinions, a quick check with a Korean friend of mine, who has lived in Korea for 40 years--thus trumping Park's credibility by 24 years--got the response that the stats are a lie. That is no surprise. It would not be the first time dog meat exponents have spread lies and rumors to further their case.
Let's look at another survey from the Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 65, No. 3, 2009, pp. 615--632:
Respondents were in favor of using dogs as pets or companions (60% tended to or strongly approved), but the majority were against the use of dogs as food for humans (55% tended to or strongly disapproved). Pet owners were not significantly more likely to disapprove of using dogs for food than nonpet owners (58% compared with 53%, respectively)
Now, that sounds a bit more like it. However, we concede that "Only 24% would support a ban on the eating of dog, which is lower than the support for a ban on sheep (29%) and cattle (33%)."
The lack of science or objectivity behind the survey Park cites is illustrated by such biased expressions as "the fact that edible dog is exceptionally bred" (for "exceptionally" read "specially"), when of course anyone who knows anything about the dog meat industry knows all kinds of dogs end up as meat, as we shall now discuss.
Park shares some anecdotal information on the disturbing way that Koreans can so easily divorce pets from the idea of dog meat. Park's friend in Korea, if we are to believe him, owns a Yorkshire Terrier as a pet, but is nonetheless a huge fan of dog meat. She frequently goes to dog meat restaurants with her Terrier and feels no inner conflict. She is the kind of Korean who tends to "distinguish dogs raised as pets and dogs raised as food, and have no qualms about eating a dog." An ignorant and uncaring Korean, in other words.
It is pathetic the way dogs are distinguished in this way, as if how they are raised can make them an entirely different species adapted to appalling deprivation and cruelty. To his credit, Park alludes to how any kind of dog can end up as meat in the dog meat industry, and of course Koreans with pet dogs who eat dog meat could be eating the same breed as their pet, for all they know. But has he bothered to tell his ignorant dog meat eating friend about this?
Now to the first mention of the cruelty, suffering and brutality dogs are subjected to. Here is what Park has to say to the question of how dogs are raised and slaughtered.
Because Livestock Processing Act does not cover dog meat, dog-ranchers (so to speak) and dog meat sellers essentially go for the raising/slaughtering method that generates maximum profit. This generally leads to unsightly living conditions for edible dogs, similar to those of pigs or chickens in industrialized farming in the U.S., only in a smaller scale. Dogs are raised in a small cage and sold alive until they get to meat market. Then they are generally electrocuted before being processed and shipped to restaurants.
Notice his comparison of dog farm conditions with US factory-farm practices? It won't be the first time he slips that argument to further his agenda. But all he has to say about the inhumane and disgusting way dogs are treated is that there are "unsightly living conditions." Oh, dear, you can't have anything "unsightly"--that just won't do!
Park's soft touch betrays both a certain level of ignorance and a disregard for the victims of the dog meat industry. Perhaps it is inconvenient to dwell upon it. After ever so briefly touching on the wretched lives dogs must live, what about the sickeningly brutal and barbaric way they are sometimes killed?
... because Livestock Processing Act does not cover dog meat, there is no restriction about how to kill a dog for meat. At the meat market, the need to slaughter the dogs quickly usually means dogs are electrocuted, similar to cattle. However, especially in rural areas where people slaughter dogs to cook and eat on their own, the common method is to hang the dog and beat it to death, in an attempt to tenderize the meat. (This, however, may be counterproductive; while beating the meat does tenderize it, an animal that dies in a stressed state generally produces tougher and less tasty meat.) A figurative expression in Korean for a severe beating is “like beating a dog on bok day.”
What does Park have to say about this backward and disgusting savagery? "Enough with the cultural stuff," he says, and moves on to another topic.
We do not have to wait long for his vague and half-baked opinions to emerge. They are in response to objections to dog eating, which he classifies into 3 sections.
- Koreans should not be eating meat, period–and that includes dog meat.
- Koreans may eat other meat, but not dog meat.
- Koreans should not eat dog meat because the process by which dogs are turned into meat is unnecessarily cruel
First, he turns to the idea of meat eating in general, and yes, he uses the cliche phrase "self-righteous vegetarians and vegans"--it would be a surprise if it did not appear. There are only two arguments against meat eating as far as Park is concerned:
- It is immoral to cause pain to sentient beings
- Forgoing meat production will alleviate world hunger
Park tried vegetarianism for a year, not because of the first argument but because of the second argument. That is because he does not care about the first argument, or rather he does not care about animals. What about the massive problem of meat eating and its contribution to climate change and other environmental problems? Livestock production is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all the world's transport combined. Issues like that are completely and conveniently overlooked.
We are then presented with this strange statement: "what makes the second argument very convincing turns the first argument unpersuasive, and even dangerous." This is intriguing and we read on wondering how this is so. But Park does not say how or why, leaving us with no idea what he is talking about, which tends to suggest that he has no clear idea of what he is talking about, either.
What he does instead of explaining himself is focus on the claim that animals are “sentient beings." And here it is, you could see it coming--yet another cliche, the one about humans being omnivores, top of the food chain, born to hunt, biologically destined, etc., etc. Predictable stuff.
Our biological destiny is amoral. We do not think lions are immoral because they eat meat. That is what they do. Similarly, humans eat meat. That’s what we do. Even in places that have few animals to eat, humans turn to animal protein. For example, in traditional New Guinea society where there was no large animals (chicken counts as large) to eat, people ate mice, spiders and frogs.
It is laughable, too. Yes, and chimpanzees supplement their diets like early humans would have. That does not mean it was ordained by "destiny" that humans should eat large slabs of meat at nearly every meal and subject billions of animals to the totally unnatural, drug pumped and genetically altered nightmare of factory farms. What is natural about that?
But wait, it gets better. The following statement alone gives an idea of the cliches floating around in Park's brain on the shallow waters of his thinking.
As biological omnivores, there can be no moral judgment attached to the fact that humans eat meat. In order to eat meat, pain must be caused on animals. This is not only inevitable, but also universal in a world in which animals eat other animals to survive. Sentient beings cause pain–and indeed, death–to other sentient beings all the time, as far as eating and survival are concerned. It is unpersuasive to say that humans must be an exception.
Now we approach a little closer to the truth of Park's world view and where animals fit in. What this kind of idiocy implies is that the human race is absolved of any guilt or even the need to care about causing animal suffering. According to this twisted logic, nature allows any excess. Thus it is legitimate to commit cruelty against an animal, such as beating a dog with baseball bats while it is hanging from a tree, fishing wires around its neck, slowly choking to death. Not even a biblical apologist for dominionism would go that far into the twilight zone of bizarre might-is-right apologetics. But there's no stopping T. K. Park.
Park is on a role of illogical non-sequitors, continuing with this statement:
the "sentient being” argument leads people to value animals more than humans. This is utter insanity, and completely unacceptable.
Yes, by the time he makes this point, we are quite aware that Park does not care about animals. But there are levels of disregard. He helps us out by clarifying, with the opinion that if it stopped a human being from dying.
the Korean would gladly torture and kill any number of dogs with his own bare hands in the most horrendous manner imaginable.
A measure of "insanity" may be more attributable to Park than the rest of us.
The last "torture and kill" remark comes during paragraphs where Park becomes virtually an apologists for sociopath and dog torturer and killer Michael Vick. He spends a great deal of time arguing in Vick's favor, but disguising it as an appeal for constitutional justice and fairness, or by measuring the Vick case against other cases, from which are omitted relevant details that would weaken his position.
Where does eating dogs fit into all of this? Basically, animals are really not worth thinking about in moral terms and their feelings are irrelevant:
By imbuing morality into an amoral subject, the argument over-values animals’ pain and undervalues human interest.
His finally word on the matter is "pesticides that kill millions of animals (insects) in order to grow the vegetables," but it is unclear how this relates to "sentient beings." Not that Park is ever much interested in sticking to logic.
What is Park's next objection? He hates it when Koreans are asked not to eat dog meat but no one complains about them eating other kinds of meat. Park looks at this only from the point of view of a foreigner telling Koreans what they should and shouldn't eat, never mind the fact that many Koreans object to dog meat eating, too.
This is where the "cultural superiority" argument comes in--yet another cliche that was inevitable. We get a Korean history lesson, according to the world of T. K. Park.
in an agricultural economy like old Asia, dogs had just about one use – meat. In that sense, dogs in East Asia were not much different from chickens. But no matter–to the opponents of dog meat, their historical accident is superior to any other people’s historical accident, regardless of how accidental their historical accident was.
Of course, this idea of historical dog domestication for meat is not agreed upon even in Korea. The range of opinion is anywhere from entirely refuted to still undecided to undoubted fact--one suspects opinion falls depending on your taste for dog meat. Culture superiority does not enter into the debate when cruelty and morality, which also reflect upon us as a species, are the issue. Antiquated local traditions, from a more ignorant age, justify nothing.
Park then brings in the old chestnut that dogs should not be treated as any different to other livestock animals. He then wants to convince us that dogs are, well, pretty useless except for eating. So, he sets out to dismiss the two main reasons--according to him--for why dogs are seen as special: intelligence and loyalty.
On intelligence, he argues that dogs are not so smart and that the intelligence argument against dog meat eating is hypocritical, if other intelligent animals like pigs are eaten. Yes, this argument is entirely valid but if you are arguing with a vegetarian or a vegan, it is useless. The point is valid to some extent. Foreigners cannot point the finger if they are meat eaters. There is just one proviso that ought not to be forgotten, and that is in the West pigs are not slaughtered by being hanged and beaten to raise adrenaline levels in their meat, so that inadequate Korean men might heroically obtain an erection.
On loyalty, Park states that a dog's loyalty is "vastly overrated," without offering any proof why except for anthropomorphism:
Humans are particularly good at projecting their own values and emotions with animals, distorting the truth of what happens in the social life of animals.
I supposed it depends on who you are. One thing you can be sure about is that dogs can suffer and feel pain, they have hunger and thirst, and they become stressed under extremely unnatural conditions. Humans can understand and relate to these conditions because humans do not enjoy them either. But you would not call such common sense perception an act of anthropomorphism.
Park admits that dogs are loyal, but then tries to take any credit for that away from the dogs themselves in an attempt to diminish their worth and their loyalty:
...it is a mistake to ascribe the value of human loyalty to a dog’s loyalty. Dogs are not loyal because they choose to be loyal–dogs are loyal because that’s exactly what they are hard-wired to do.
Who is saying dog loyalty is like human loyalty? No one, and in fact, if anything, most people will say the loyalty of a dog far exceeds that of what most of us can expect from our fellow humans. Dog loyalty for Park is a kind of reflex action. Dogs are "hard wired" to do it. All of this is in keeping with Park's conveniently Cartesian and mechanical animal world view.
Part three of Park's analysis of objections to dog meat eating concerns the cruelty issue--finally! He has largely ignored this, but at this point he says that the opposition to dog meat because of cruelty has "merit." This comes as a surprise, given his prior dismissals of any merit or morality in considering animal welfare. Of course his late concession does not come without some qualifications.
while there can be no moral judgment attached to the fact that humans eat meat, there can be moral judgment attached to how humans eat meat
....
humans need to treat the animal that sacrifices its life for our benefit with dignity and respect.
That means doing away with the "most horrifying aspects of industrialized farming." Once again, you can see the ignorant and dismissive attitude underlying everything Park says. Let's get one thing clear, an animal does not "sacrifice its life" for our benefit. No animal ever has. It does not want to live in misery for our benefit, either.
When he tiries to look good, as if he is capable of objective analysis, Park starts coming out with political correct cliches. Suddenly we now must treat animals with "dignity and respect"--who, you, Mr. Park? Now you are starting to confuse us. He then magnanimously embarks on a vision for change, at which you may find yourself guffawing, if you know what things are really like in Korea:
the current way in which dogs raised for their meat in Korea must change. The tiny cages must go, and so must the unsanitary living condition for those dogs. The method of slaughtering the dogs must be regulated as well, so that the dogs may end their lives in a humane, dignified manner.
It will never happen. Platitudes and hollow sentiments, Mr. Park, while you attempt to position yourself as a fair and objective observer, yet reveal your ignorance of the reality of the dog meat industry in Korea, or are you just being dishonest. And what are you doing to put an end to the horrors dogs have to endure? Nothing, judging by everything else you say.
Sadly, Park is of the school of thought subscribe to by many other shallow thinkers--for example, a lot of the male foreigners in Korea--who laughingly believe that "regulating" the dog meat industry will bring about miraculous improvements. It is almost like North Korea saying that it will introduce more regulations to make its citizens happier. A white wash of banal statements and vacuous words is usually enough for people like Park. It helps them feel they have done their bit and solved the problem. It allows them to sit back down with minds at ease into the comfortable armchair of complacency.
Who are the wrongdoers preventing a marvelous new world order of regulation, cleanliness and happy dogs? According to Park, it's the dog meat opponents! Here we were thinking the people who ate dog meat assisted in continuing the suffering of millions of dogs every year, when all along it was actually the people who don't eat dog meat! Thank you, Mr. Park, for setting us straight on that one.
Equally erroneous is Park's view that the people against dog meat "hold all the leverage." It would be big news, if it were true, to people who have tried for years and years to improve conditions or to reduce dog meat trafficking and have gotten nowhere.
Park is not completely ignorant of what is going on in Korea because he knows dog industry "regulations" are only about better hygiene for human health. He knows it will do absolutely nothing for dog welfare. Of course, he keeps that to himself because it represents a major flaw in his argument. You can see him putting a spin on the idea of regulation to make it sound like dogs will benefit from it:
the lawmakers of Seoul city government attempted to regulate the dog meat processing procedure so that it would be more hygienic, and therefore humane. (Because after all, it is humane to have animals living in a clean condition.)
Yes, it is laughable, once again--Park, the crusader for animal cleanliness. Undaunted, Park continues on, digging himself into a bigger hole of dishonesty.
while attempting to reduce the suffering of dogs raised for meat through regulation is a valid and worthy goal, boycotting dog meat is not the way to do that.
...
The best way to make the dogs’ lives less miserable, therefore, is to target those who blindly oppose any measure that attempts to regulate dog meat.
Let's look at an example of a regulation of sorts that came in effect in September, 2009, after Park had written this rubbish. The regulation was to deal with the removal of livestock waste and applied to large dog farms. Note again that this had nothing to do with improving the lives of dogs or any other farmed animals. Has the regulation worked? No. Dog farm operators do not want to install expensive waste removal systems. If they are fined under the regulation, they simply pay up and carry on as usual. So much for regulating even a small part of the dog meat industry.
In the final analysis perhaps Park has absorbed some of the terrible attitudes some Koreans have towards animals while he was growing up. He stands as an illustration of one of the key problems surrounding the acceptance of Korea's dog meat industry. By accepting it, society remains suffused by a low standard of animal welfare, such that brutal excesses become tolerated and even lawmakers are reluctant to legislate against them. It means that what was once done in past days of ignorance in a peasant village continues on even in a modern society. It means that dogs and other animals are sometimes treated badly even in an ordinary backyard, simply because people have been brought up to know no better. It means that a new generation of children assimilate and continue ignorant, backward and inhumane behavior without questioning it.
What often happens then is that someone--responsible people--invariably has to clean up the mess created by abandonment, abuse and apathy towards animals. You can bet that it is not dog eaters who do that.
It is now time to look at concluding remarks from Park, a man with a clear conscience and an enormous sense of self-entitlement as a human being, a man with an insensitive and dulled mind incapable of understanding and true compassion.
If you want Koreans to stop eating dog meat – didn’t the Korean already tell you go away and fuck yourself?
Yes, you did, and I would like to extend the same invitation to you and anyone like you who supports the continued horrors of the dog meat industry and brings nothing but shame on Korea. Beyond that, opinionated world views like Park's make you realize that humans have a long way to evolve before attaining anything close to civilization.
|
