Of Death And Animal Sacrifice

Not too long ago, a Spanish bullfighter was killed in the ring while performing.  His death was a tragedy for some and a grim poetic justice for others, who spammed his Facebook page and his wife's Twitter feed with celebratory comments.  It is easy to dismiss bullfighting as barbaric and its fans as savages.  It is also easy to dismiss fanatical animal rights activists as the same.  What I wonder is why the fascination with this activity is promoted, since many humans do seem to have curiosity about violence and death, but in most cases are told to bury or redirect that interest.  It is generally accepted that we do not push dogs or roosters to fight each other.  We are not allowed to tease or bother farm animals, especially if we do not own them.  The way we treat our pets, our legal property and responsibility, is regulated.  The majority do not have a problem with these facts.  Yet, in some countries, it is perfectly respectable to torment a large animal for many minutes and finally kill it in front of a cheering crowd.  Is this a double standard?

One argument in favor of bullfighting rests on the supposed art and representational quality of it.  The killing of the bull is a performance acting out the struggle for survival in nature; the clever often survive, not always the merely strong; a death is always necessary to maintain a life.  Some insist that bullfighting is more "honest" than the simple slaughter of food animals.  Are we likening the killing of our prey to bullying versus boxing?  For the most part people are not happy to see the weak terrorized, although they may not intervene.  We do enjoy a contest between equals or close equals, however.  A test of skills and will to succeed is exciting, and we may root for one side or the other, but we do not like to see abuse on the playing field.  Even in sports with a heavy dose of physical violence, we like to see sheer power or technique overcome a tough opponent, not a clearly superior winner obliterating the competition.  There is no sport in slaughter.  The food never has a chance.  The bull, on the other hand, is supposed to be brave, strong, a worthy foe.  He should be a bit wild and unpredictable, but not so much that the bullfighter cannot dodge him, I suppose.  Still, if the bullfight is merely playacting, a show of nature's brutality, why is it necessary to open the bull's veins?  Why must he die impaled by steel at the end of the performance?  The competition becomes a snuff show.  The other sort of "man against nature" show is hunting, which is not performed, but simply done.  It is sometimes done in a group for the enjoyment of the hunters, and the trophies may be displayed afterwards, but the actual kill is not a spectacle worthy of an audience of fans.

The very art of the fight is another argument put forth.  The dance and grace of the two opponents, the tradition of the costume and form of the animal, savage beauty, they say.  Yet, how many beautiful traditions have we eliminated due to their cruelty?  Who would insist we begin to castrate young boys to preserve their singing voices in this day and age?  Who would promote foot binding in the old Chinese style?  Although tattooing is more accepted, we still generally shudder at scarification and piercings not in the ears.  But, these things have been or are considered beautiful and traditional.  One objection to this argument is the concept of physical autonomy that we tend to grant to people, although limited to some extent with regard to children.  The bull does not have this right.  And yet, we view with distaste the cropping of ears and tails in dogs and horses, another tradition based on looks in the end even in there was practicality in the beginning.  Snuff films are illegal.  The torture of animals for art's sake is not permitted.  Even our own bodies can be protected from our harmful whims when we long for extremes of modification.  Why should an animal be bothered, poked, stabbed and finally executed just because of an artistic fashion?  The argument of tradition is also a weak one, as it usually is.  A great many traditions have fallen by the wayside as society and culture develop because they lose relevance or gain cruelty.  The bullfight is unlikely to represent either the Roman circus or the Minoan bovine acrobatics.  It is modern in its performance and meaning.  Tradition is a weak and unsatisfying argument.

However, something still seems to be missing from the scene.  There is history, tradition, ritual, color, combat, death...why, I would say we are dealing with a sacrifice!  An animal sacrifice, to be precise.  The bull, a strong and powerful animal, must die to water to earth with his potent blood, and the bullfighter must kill him in order to grow in skill and strength, absorbing the spirit of those he has killed.  This, this is a sacrifice to the gods!  What gods?  Well...maybe that is the real problem.  The gods have been forgotten.  Their names are lost.  They are no longer called and adored, and we know how pissed off gods get when they do not receive the attention they feel is due to them.  That may be the answer to why Spain has so many problems - they have lost the favor of their forgotten gods.  All they have to do is rediscover their names and shout them aloud the next time the sand is stained with the liquid life of one of their champions.