Hello folks,

Those anti-nonhuman animals will enjoy this - are there any?

Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Gorrie" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Fox-hunting


> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:30:13 -0000
> From: john Lock <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Overall the whole thing can be regarded analytically as a process of
> intellectualisation. In my student days Barclays were the socially
> acceptable target.  Before that it was nuclear disarmament. Former
> generations had their Communism and Vietnams. Later generations have had
> apartheid in South Africa.  Often the cause, however worthy, gets subsumed
> to the point of tokenism by other more personal agendas.
>
> Some of the anti-hunting protest is in many ways indistinguishable from
> football hooliganism. Indeed I tend to regard them as football hooligans
> with ideological pretensions.  One side still sets out to destroy the
> activity of the other.
>
> The problem with hunting is that instead of the direct adversarial
> relationship of the rival football fans, there is a hierarchical
> relationship.  In effect the 'hunt saboteurs' (as they are known) hunt the
> fox-hunters who in turn hunt the fox.  It is all carefully planned and
> meticulously carried out and is very much a ritual activity. And ritual
> activities are, as I recall, sure signs of displacement activities. The
> saboteurs obtain their reward by destroying the hunters' pleasure, rather
> as a terrorist obtains his immediate reward by inspiring terror through
> injuring and maiming innocent bystanders. The professed goal lies some
> distance away from the immediate act but is deemed to justify the means.
>
> The foxhunters endeavour to spoil the fox's day.  That too is carefully
> planned.  One of the things that people generally fail to observe is that
> foxhunting is not a spontaneous activity at any level. There are costs.
> You need to be a better than competent horseman to do it. You have to be
> invited to participate. Foxes have to be tolerated between hunts. If they
> were all shot as vermin there would ipso facto be no foxhunting. The risk
> of damage to crops and livestock has to be faced.  If you let people on
> your land and they trash your crops the insurance company will take a dim
> view of any subsequent claim. So it is good for reinforcing a hierarchical
> social order based on wealth and culture because if you're not rich enough
> nor well-versed in the requisite skillset you just can't hack it.
>
> On the positive side it does provide social adhesion within a rural
> setting by reiterating a ritual enabling both the long-standing residents
> and the 'weekenders' to meet without unduly affecting the social
> pretensions of either and it affords other groups identity by their
> declared opposition to it. There is a certain implicit snobbery on both
> sides.  There are the formal huntsmen and those who merely follow the
> hunt. On the saboteurs' side there many different levels from the peaceful
> protesters to the criminally zealous. Again it provides participants with
> a measure of social adhesion. What they would do without foxhunting is an
> interesting question in its own right.
>
> The fox of course attempts to spoil the hunters' day.  Even it has to do
> its homework and learn where the best bolt-holes are!
>
> Those of us with Roger Scruton the hunting philosopher (on this topic
> anyway!) accept that people have de facto some privileges concerning
> animals and some duties of conscience too but do not think that this
> necessarily imparts any rights to the animal.
>
> regards
>
> John A W Lock
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Gorrie" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 3:28 PM
> Subject: Fox-hunting
>
>
> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:37:58 -0500
> From: David Fahey <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Perhaps an English subscriber to this list can explain to foreigners the
> remarkable intensity of the current debate over fox-hunting.  Is this a
> cultural conflict turned political?  I have occasionally fished but never
> hunted myself.  Although I don't find fox-hunting attractive, I can't
> imagine placing it near the top of my personal list of things to change
> right away (racism, child abuse, poverty, etc.).
>
> In contrast with the UK, the political system in the United States makes
it
> difficult for the urban and suburban districts to overwhelm the rural
> districts.  Moreover, both major political parties are strong enough in
> rural districts not to be quick about offending the voters there.  The
> closest analogy as a political conflict would be over gun control, but
this
> is not entirely an urban and suburban versus countryside dispute.
>
> David M. Fahey
> Miami University
> [log in to unmask]