WP1 Rough Draft
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 was celebrating the indigenous new year, a Chinese city celebrated one of the most controversial festivals, 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 find their favorite one to purchase and eat.
Even though eating dogs is acceptable in some nations, it is undoubtedly not accepted globally. Thus, whether we should address this issue nationally and globally is fiercely debated. A globalist might propose an international treaty to ban dog eating worldwide. But I would like to address this issue nationally because we should respect the uniqueness and sovereignty of national culture. Allowing globally dominant cultures to assimilate minority ones is dangerous and would destroy diversity in humanities.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to witness predominant global beliefs interfering with indigenous practices. In the case of dog-eating, some international objectors are more than being positive, sometimes interfere aggressively. 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. From a global perspective, dogs are companions to people and should not be breaded for consumption. Since humans and dogs can form strong emotional ties, we should not eat dogs.
Admittedly, the global perspective makes sense; however, it does not legitimize assimilation of minority cultures because it interferes with other cultural practices with ethnocentrism, which is the belief that culture is superior. Many judgments and interference are based on ethnocentrism. In this case, I would like to name the belief of conforming to predominate cultures as global-centrism. In Shenzhen, a metropolis in China, banned dog eating, stating that “eating dogs could hurt international friends.” The global-centric law was controversial in Chinese social media. Supporters believe eating dogs is a backward culture and should catch up with the global trend. Objectors worried that their culture would gradually vanish. Global-centrism is problematic as it would logically lead to distinctions of minority cultures, and if this process continues, there will ultimately be only one sole culture. That would be a massive loss to humanities.
Instead of restraining ourselves from a global perspective, a national approach would manage differences and protect diversity. Like many other concepts, dogs have different meanings to different groups of people. Understandably, in societies that have historically treated dogs as companions and pets, dogs have been reasonably granted like-human rights. Even though industrial farming of animals, such as pigs and chickens, is generally accepted in these societies, dogs are one of the few loved and protected species. Therefore, cultures are shaped by the history of people.
Similarly, cultures that accept eating dogs have their historical backgrounds as well. Specifically, certain ethnic groups in China and South Korea believe that dog meat is nutritious and can strengthen and warm the body. This belief was supported by traditional Chinese medicine and is still widely employed in China and Korea.
Therefore, if we agree cultures treating dogs as companions is legitimate given their history, we shall not claim that cultures eating dogs based on their historical background is wrong. Otherwise, we apply a double standard, which is unfair to minority cultures.
Some may further argue that historical foundation can not justify eating dogs because they have outstanding intellectual ability and have complex feelings similar to humans. Therefore, we should grant them more rights, including not being killed. However, dogs are not the only animal with outstanding intellectual and emotional capacity. Studies have shown animals such as pigs have similarly high capacities as well. So, why is industrial farming of pigs accepted? Is it due to its special meaning or attraction to us? If we address this problem from a global approach, we might, in the end, have to ban eating most animals. For example, cows have special meanings to India, which 17% of the global population worshiped. Should we ban cow-eating as well so that every country should stop eating beef? Suppose a globalist advocates for not eating cows due to holiness; western cultures would understand the discomfort of culturally assimilated.
