WP1 — If We Promote A “Melting Pot” for Different People, Why Not Support A “Washing Pot” for Distinct Meanings of animals?
June 21st is a day no different than others, a day rich and vigorous and full of joy, a day cruel and evil and full of inferiority. It mainly depends on the person’s cultural background and how he interprets that day. Humanities are so vivid and diverse that every day can have a unique meaning to some people. On June 21st, 2021, when Chile celebrated the indigenous new year, a Chinese city was cheering for a controversial festival, “the Lychee and Dog Meat Festival.” Dog meat lovers, mainly from China and Korea, would gather at Yulin, a small city little known to many people but Jerusalem for dog eaters.
The festival is cruel to most people; even glancing at the pictures could be disturbing. Most dogs are industrially farmed and publicly butchered and cooked. Along the main street of the festival, thousands of dead dogs with skin removed are hanged and cooked. Visitors joyfully wander around and purchase their favorite meat.
Even though eating dogs is acceptable in some nations, it is generally not accepted globally. As a result, whether the international community should preserve dog-eating traditions in China and Korea is a heated debate. On the one hand, globalists criticize the norm by arguing that dogs are companion animals and should not be eaten; on the other hand, I believe individual nations should retain the right to determine the destiny of the tradition. By choosing a national approach, we respect what dog means to different countries and preserve traditional cultures. Otherwise, if we address this issue globally, we are, in other words, evaluating another culture based on standards of our own, which is ethnocentrism. Allowing ethnocentrism to assimilate minority cultures is dangerous and would destroy diversity in humanities.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to witness predominant global beliefs interfering with indigenous practices. For example, in 2014, some activists blocked trunks suspicious of transporting dogs on the highway to Yulin. Dogs were rescued or, put it another way, forcibly taken away. Admittedly, the global perspective offers several reasons. One of the most common reasons is that dogs are intelligent and companion animals since they have co-evolved and loved humans throughout history; however, it does not legitimize assimilation of minority cultures because it interferes with other cultural practices with ethnocentrism.
In fact, many cultures have eaten dogs for thousands of years. Some scholars even argue that dogs’ human-oriented instincts result from human selections. Less adorable dogs were abandoned or eaten, while those who thrive on pleasing humans could survive and evolve. Therefore, the pet culture nowadays could be shaped by the “accused” traditions. Human relation with pets is undoubtedly a treasurable aspect of humanity. Who knows if dog-eating will continue to impose selective pressure and influence the evolution of dogs? We were lucky our ancestors didn’t prohibit eating dogs, so people today can joyfully live with dogs. However, suppose we use a global approach now. In that case, we might likely miss a more harmonious and complimentary human-dog relation, which is a tragic loss to humanity.
Moreover, animals, including dogs, have different meanings to different cultures. Banning one practice might lead to a chain effect of abandoning more traditions. For instance, many Indians believe cows are holy, while other cultures eat cows without guilt. Similarly, as companions to some cultures, dogs have historically been conceptualized as a source of calories in other countries. People have eaten dogs in China and South Korea for thousands of years. In addition, eating dogs is closely correlated to many other traditions as well. Chinese Medicine, for example, believed that dog meat could warm people’s bodies and is exceptionally nutritious for the elderly and pregnant. In some regions, older adults eat dogs during festivals since they believe it can prolong their lives. Banning dog-eating would lead to the loss of Chinese medicines and festivals, and there will be countless losses if the international community ban dog meat worldwide. Therefore, if we agree cultures treating dogs as companions is legitimate in some cultures due to their history, we shall not claim that cultures eating dogs based on their historical background is wrong. Global-centrism is problematic as it would lead to distinctions of minority cultures, and if this process continues, we may face the extinction of cultural diversity.
Some may further argue that historical foundation can not justify eating dogs because they have outstanding intellectual ability and complex emotions similar to humans, and dogs’ properties apply globally. Therefore, they propose that we grant them more rights, at least not to be killed. However, I’m afraid I have to disagree with this explanation because that could lead to bans of more animals. Dogs are not the only animals with tremendous intellectual and emotional capacity. Studies have shown mammals such as pigs have similarly high capacities as well. If we address this problem from a global approach, we might, in the end, don’t eat any mammals at all, which would lead to lower health and living standards.
Therefore, to prevent the tragic loss to humanity and deterioration of human health and living standards, we need to take a national approach to preserve different cultures. In fact, we are witnessing the gradual fade-away of dog-eating in China and South Korea. Younger generations view pets more positively and advocate for animal rights, which results from mutual respect. Younger Korean and Chinese determine the change of their cultures based on their understandings, which we should never interfere with. By doing so, we guarantee that local people’s discretion is protected, which is fundamentally beneficial to us as well.
In conclusion, I believe the international community should address the controversy of eating dog meats through a national approach, which will prevent loss to humanities and avoid deterioration of our health and living standards. The future of a culture should be determined by its people. Otherwise, if we allow predominant cultures to assimilate smaller ones, we might one day witness the distinction of diversity we are all proud of as human beings.
