Language reflects the beliefs, opinions and ethics of the language users. To give an example, in the age of black slavery, racists commonly referred to black people as "brutes". This simple historical fact indicates two things about the people using the term: they believed that black people are "sub-human", and that non-human animals are necessarily and naturally inferior to humans in all respects.
Referring to black people as "brutes" reflected both racism and speciesism. Since non-human animals were (and to a large extent still are) considered to be "lesser beings" and therefore considered as human property "by right", the labelling of black people as "brutes" was consciously or unconsciously used to "justify" the treatment and use of black people the same way as "brutes" (non-human animals) are. This meant that, if people were convinced that black people are "brutes", to treat them as other than "brutes" would be illogical. Of course, the (il)logic hinges on the wrong assumption that "brutes" are lesser beings as much as the equally wrong assumption that black people are "sub-human".
Thankfully, institutional human slavery has been abolished, along with the immoral and unscientific belief that black people are "sub-human". Language reflects the beliefs, ethics and opinions of the language user, which is why most people today would find calling black people "brutes" offensive. To press the point further, the only reason why people get offended when called "brutes" or "animals", is because of the speciesist belief that non-human animals are necessarily inferior to humans in all respects, as well as the unscientific belief that we "are not animals". In actual fact, we are all animals. Calling me an animal is as (non-) offensive as calling me a man, but again, it is all about language reflecting culture, belief and ethics.
What led me to write the above is a letter from hunting apologist David Borg Cardona in today's The Times, in which he writes:
"There seems to be some confusion among readers over the word 'hunting'. In the UK the word has come to be used in the narrow sense as denoting the pursuit of the fox with horses and hounds. The hunting of deer goes under the name of 'stalking'.
The hunting of wild ducks, geese and waders is referred to as 'wildfowling' and the hunting of game-birds (sic) such as pheasants is generally described as 'game-shooting'.
Someone who shoots clay-pigeons is also a shooter. It is the custom now in England to refer to people engaged in game-shooting (sic), stalking and wildfowling (sic) as 'guns' or 'shots'. For example, one finds 'he's an excellent shot!' and 'he's a safe gun'".
One would be inclined to say "so what?" regarding all the above, except that perhaps it is opportune to point out the inherent speciesism (culture and ethics reflect language use) in calling any birds "game birds", by wrongly assuming two things: that killing birds is somehow a "game", and that the purpose of such birds is for them to be "game", and therefore to be shot.
Like thinking of black persons as "brutes" "justifies" their treatment "as brutes" (that is, if one sees non-human animals as inferior to humans in any and all respects), similarly, thinking of some birds as "game birds" "justifies" treating them as if they were "game birds" and nothing but "game birds". Calling them "game birds" sanitizes the act of murdering them. Culture and beliefs, once again, reflect the language use, and language use in its turn sanitizes the injustice of killing them for fun.
Mr Borg Cardona goes on to say that "The actual act of 'shooting' a bird takes up only an infinitesimal fraction of the hunter's time and does not reflect the full complete nature of 'hunting'. The main 'hunting' activity takes various forms, like the physical active pursuit of the quarry (sic) (stalking), the patient wait in a hide or butt for quarry (sic) to show up (wildfowling), the waiting at a peg for quarry (sic) to be flushed out of woods by beaters (driven) and the flushing of game-birds (sic) by one or more hunters walking with one or more dogs (walked-up)".
Again, culture and belief reflect language use. Describing any bird as "quarry", "game" etc, reflects inherent and possibly unconscious speciesism. Calling birds "quarry" or "game" assigns an arbitrary purpose to the said birds, which in turn helps "justify" their "proper" use as quarry or game. Of course, no effort is made by the speciesist to justify treating birds as quarry or game. The speciesist prejudice is so ingrained that most times it is a subconscious prejudice that is held as if it were unquestionable and undeniable fact.
Mr Borg Cardona concludes his letter by writing: "To avoid confusion when writing in the English papers about Maltese 'hunting', perhaps it would be best to use the word 'hunting' as the generic term for all field shooting and bird-trapping.
The word 'game-shooting' (sic) should be used to refer to the shooting of game-birds (sic) as quails and the word 'trapping' to refer to all bird-trapping activities.
The illegal shooting of protected birds cannot be described by any of the above-mentioned terms and those acting illegally can never be described as 'hunters'.
They are a disgrace to the genuine hunters and a blemish on our cherished sport".
Once again, a case of culture and belief reflecting language use. Mr Borg Cardona says that "game-shooting" should be used to refer to shooting "game-birds", since he assumes that quails' purpose in life (a purpose he arbitrarily assigns to them) is to be shot as "game". We challenge that prejudiced assumption, and therefore refer to the shooting of any bird as "hunting", or more appropriately, premeditated murder.
As for Mr Borg Cardona's claim that those shooting birds illegally "can never by described as hunters", my immediate reply is: why not? I will only concede that those who hunt illegally are illegal hunters, but they are hunters nonetheless - they hunt (illegally). Of course, something being legal does not necessarily imply that its moral. One should remember that human slavery was entirely legal before it was recognized as immoral and subsequently abolished.
As for calling hunting a "sport", this would only be true if one equally regards gladiatorial fights in ancient Rome as a "sport".
I was under the impression that one of the fundamentals of genuine sport is that it is practiced freely, and that no one is forced to participate. Calling hunting a "sport" would only make sense if birds were willing participants in the activity the aim of which is to kill them. But then, perhaps my conclusion stems from the fact that my ethics are reflected in my language use, just as Mr Borg Cardona's own "ethics" are reflected in his own language use. One thing is certain: sanitizing hunting by the use of "harmless" terms won't change the fact that in practice, hunting is nothing more than the unnecessary killing of sentient animals for self-gratification and the pleasure gained from taking innocent life.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment