How do you feel about those who claim to "thank the animals"

[Critters2]

they've killed or eaten?

I'm having a discussion with someone in one of the hunting threads in DU. She talks about how Native Americans "thank" the animals they've killed, showing their appreciation. My response was "I'm sure the animals appreciate it. :eyes:" So, she wants to know why I'm an animal rights advocate, why I don't think it's enough to "thank" the animals, whether I see animals and people as interconnected, etc.

I'm still pondering my response, and wondered what some of you would say. I find this romanticizing of hunting, not to mention of Native Cultures--and using them as a rationalization for cruelty--really irritating. But I'm trying to find a tactful way to say what I feel.

I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks in advance!

Critters

edit: I meant one of the hunting threads in GD.

[LeftyMom]

1. I think it makes about as much sense as apologizing to one's wife after beating her.

Maybe a bit less, at least the abused and abusive spouse presumably speak the same language.

Hey, whatever lets people sleep at night. :shrug:

[Robeson]

2. I'm not sure what the ancient animistic beliefs of the Native Americans...

...have to do with her joy of hunting. The Native American belief system evolved through thousands of years of independent development. I think its a bit of a stretch to compare her taking out a Browning and killing an animal, with ancient Indian beliefs. Also, they weren't "thanking" the animal when they killed it. In their animistic viewpoint, almost all things - especially animals - had a soul. When they killed an animal, and performed a religious ritual, they were incorporating that soul and it's attributes into themselves.

I would be interested to know if she has incorporated other Native American rituals into her life, or just morphed this one in order to justify her killing of animals? :shrug:

[flvegan]

3. I'd flip the script on them.

Ask them why they aren't an animal rights advocate, why they do think it's enough to "thank" (whatever the hell that means) the animals, and if they see animals as interconnected.

Their answers will probably tell you a lot.

[Critters2]

4. Interesting. I'll do that. Thanks. nt

[Critters2]

5. Here's my reply...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2356648&mesg_id=2363401

[flvegan]

7. Jeebus, but you're civil.

I could probably learn from that, the "punch to the throat" that I am.

[CrispyQ]

8. Excellent response!

The one following was good, too. I especially liked this:

"I do my best to live an ethical life. I don't look for ways to rationalize cruelty."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Tumbulu]

6. I see thanking the animals as a first step

At least the person is thinking about the fact that they are taking a life. I am sad to say that many people seem to think absolutely nothing about the life that was before the cheap meat that fills their plates.

They don't want to know about how it lived or how it died or what it ate.

In my family I am still considered a nut for "always thinking of these things".

So, at least they know they are taking a life. A first step towards thinking about the whole matter.

I think all the other posts had good advice and I like your response.

[and-justice-for-all]

9. Native Americans and others...

who have traditional hunting practices are rather good conservationist and do appreciate what mother nature provides for them. Native Americans, Inuets and the like are not going to over hunt or over fish, they are going to maintain a balance between their needs and the preservation of the land and Animals.

But then you have red-neck joe and his clan of dipshits who are nothing more then trigger happy. those are the clowns that are careless and have not appreciation for the Animals or the Land. I think Hunting should be banned unless your a Native, modern human hunting(redneck joe) is a devastating to Animals.

Nature has a way of balancing it self out and there is no need for us to hunt amymore. The problem is when natural predators like Wolves and Cyotes are removed from the equasion that things go wrong. The natural predators are removed in order to increae the game numbers for redneck joe. By the math it is reasonable to see the reality and the balance maintained between Predator and Prey; It swings back and forth like a pedulem: when the Predator numbers are high the Prey numbers are low and when the Prey numbers are high, the Predator numbers are low.

[Tumbulu]

10. I am not ready to say that one group has the right to hunt and not another

I have heard this Native American romanticism for so long now. I think that stereotypes serve no one even when they are supposedly positive.

I am an organic farmer and have lived in rural areas for my adult life (I have never hunted, nor do I intend to start). Thus I have known many hunters. I would say that maybe half of them never kill anything. It seems to be their excuse to go out and walk around and track animals. They always "miss". My personal conclusion is that they feel the need to justify being out and about with some task that sounds acceptable to others in the community. I am referring to people who live in the country who claim to hunt. Not the city people who show up on the first day of hunting season all decked up in new gear shooting everything, including me. Really, bullets inches by and breaking windows in houses and all these other horrors. People on farms lose lots of pets the first day of hunting season. Sept 1 is always a nightmare.

One of my friends was commenting on the fact that other social omnivores (wolves, coyotes, dogs) don't appear to feel guilty about killing and eating other animals. So, she asked, why do we feel guilty about it?

My current idea is that the killing of domesticated animals is the main reason that the modern religions came to be. My theory is that killing undomesticated animals as a group was what all the social omnivores did. The idea that we were domesticated by wolves roughly 100,000 years ago resonates with me. But once people started to be domesticated by herbivore animals about 15,000 years ago things changed.

The difference between killing a wild animal and a domesticated animal seems morally huge to me primarily because you know the animal. You grow food for it and you feed it, you may have helped with it's birth, you took care of it when it was sick. You depend on it, it depends on you.

Sorry to change the subject. It has been on my mind for so long and I hope that some of you here in this group can help me figure this out.

[defendandprotect]

11. It's kind of sad that as closely atuned to nature as native Indians were . . .

they were hunting the buffalo --

Probably the most spiritual people we're familiar with on the planet . . .
I presume this began when out of necessity they may have had to kill an animal ---
but as we see, violence breeds violence --- and it will always be so!

[Shae]

12. I think it is a very good thing. . .

Too many people chomp mindlessly on dead animal flesh.
At least those who thank the animal are acknowledging the sacrifice of a life.
It's true that it doesn't help the animal who is now dead, but it signifies an awareness in the person eating it's meat.
And unless your parents have raised you to be vegetarian, it is probably this acknowledgement and this awareness that has caused you to forego eating meat.