Of
Bullfights and other Art
Posted
by Michael Bunker
editor@lazarusunbound.com
“So
God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said
unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the
earth.” (Genesis 1:27-28)
February
22, 2006 – This short article began as a response to a good
question sent to me for our Q&A Friday email. Awhile ago I
mentioned that I appreciated bullfights, and would probably “run
with the bulls” in Pamplona if I ever had the opportunity.
Several readers have asked me how I can support a “sport”
that glorifies the killing of helpless animals. Not all of the
questions utilized the same terminology, but all were based on very
similar presuppositions.
I
think that the question will serve as a good launching point to
discuss some larger topics that are important for those who are
interested in Biblical Agrarianism as a philosophy and a way of life.
The particular topic being discussed here is (what we erroneously
call) bullfighting, though my purpose in discussing it at length, is
that I might comment on the right use of animals, and of art.
For
those who are interested in this topic, I would highly recommend
Hemingway's Death
in the Afternoon,
because the book does a good job of rebuking our somewhat modernist,
effeminate, and immoderate “love” (actually worship) of
animals. I will provide a quote from Hemingway with which I heartily
agree, and then I will produce my own personal reasoning on the
subject.
“From
observation I would say that people may possibly be divided into two
general groups; those who, to use one of the terms of the jargon of
psychology, identify themselves with, that is, place themselves in
the position of, animals, and those who identify themselves with
human beings. I believe, after experience and observation, that
those people who identify themselves with animals, that is, the
almost professional lovers of dogs, and other beasts, are capable of
greater cruelty to human beings than those who do not identify
themselves readily with animals. It seems as though there were a
fundamental cleavage between people on this basis although people who
do not identify themselves with animals may, while not loving animals
in general, be capable of great affection for an individual animal, a
dog, a cat, or a horse for instance. But they will base this
affection on some quality of, or some association with, this
individual animal rather than on the fact that it is an animal and
hence worthy of love.” (Hemingway, Death in the Afternoon)
Now
before I get into explaining my personal opinion, let me lay down
some definitions and Biblical/Agrarian presuppositions so that they
can fairly be juxtaposed to the presuppositions of those who would
oppose bullfights on animalarian (a Hemingway word; his
attempt to identify humans that personify animals) grounds:
I
want to define the word “Tragedy” since I will be
referring to it with both of its common definitions:
a.)
A dramatic poem (or drama) representing some signal action...
generally having a fatal end or result for one or more of the main
characters.
b.)
A fatal and mournful event; any event in which human lives are
lost by human violence, more particularly by unauthorized
violence.
In
this article, when I use this word “tragedy”, I will put
an (a) or (b) next to the definition I am using in that instance.
Presuppositions
behind my explanations:
We
believe that all good art has Agrarianism as its root, in that it
proceeds organically from the primary work of man in fulfilling his
role as both king and caretaker of the creation. Here we would
delineate strongly between any urban/industrialized art which
proceeds from the pride and rootlessness of urban man, and that of
agrarian art which rightly proceeds from what man should be
doing according to the Bible. Since we believe that husbandry,
farming, and the crafts and trades supporting them are the principle
and most important labors of man, and that all good art proceeds
from man in his right vocation, fulfilling his rightful duties, we
must also conclude that, without a proper worldview, it is
impossible for modern man to rightly judge art.
We
believe that one of the methods used by the devil and the Antichrist
to colonize the mind of man is through the personification of
animals (attributing human feelings and emotions to animals), and
encouraging an inordinate affection for those things that were
created for our practical use and enjoyment. We can find the roots
of mental colonization by following the acts and movements of the
devil and his minions, since we are not ignorant of his devices.
Note especially that the wicked, satanic world has introduced movies
and methods by which animals are made to talk, and to be seen with
human characteristics, emotions, and feelings. There is a reason
that every Christian should avoid any spectacle (play, movie, etc.)
where animals are personified – it is because this tool of the
devil is used to teach children that animals (given for their help
and use) are actually just like people, and should not be ruled over
as God has commanded. Wherever you find the production of movies
where animals are made to talk, you have found a training ground for
the colonization of human minds.
We
believe that created things only have value in relation to the
purpose for which they were created, and that there is no other
value inherent in any thing outside of God's commanded purpose for
that thing. Therefore it is Biblical to love a particular animal
because of its bravery, honor, integrity or other actual attributes
as they are exhibited in the fulfilling of that animal's purpose;
but it is not Biblical to love animals (in general) merely because
they are animals and therefore, somehow, worthy of love. The idiocy
of the words that must be employed by animal lovers to define how
animals are to be treated, bears witness of the intrinsic error of
animalarianism. See, for example, how animal rights people
demand that animals be treated humanely, which means “like
humans”. It is both unreasonable and a sin for man to treat
an animal like anything other than what it is (according to its
purpose), or for us to attribute human feelings and emotions to
animals in order to rationalize our own sinful and inordinate
feelings for them. It is especially sinful for any person to treat
an animal like a person, or to expect or demand that anyone else
treat an animal in such a way.
We
believe, then, that the death of an animal can only be considered
tragic (b) or immoral in relation to its loss to man as its owner.
The loss or death of a particular animal can only be rightly
understood in context with its usefulness as a creature sent by God
to benefit man, who is the rightful king and master of the animal
'kingdom'.
Now,
a “bullfight” is not really a bullfight at all. That
name is erroneous and has developed through horrible translations and
misunderstandings of what happens in a corrida de toros. The
term “corrida de toros” means “running (or
passing) of bulls”, which is an explanation of the purpose
behind the ritual that people have come to call “bullfights”.
Because the term “bullfight” has passed into such common
use, I will use that term... though I find it a bit coarse and
vulgar, as well as ill-fitting what actually happens. There are
many, many erroneous ideas, understandings and perceptions about the
bullfight. A brief perusal of the information available on the
Internet proves this assertion. Most modern so-called “histories”
of bullfighting, erroneously attribute the bullfight to pagan roots
going back to the Mediterranean bull worshiping cults of Crete (like
the Mithras). Every one of these “histories” mention
this genesis in passing, but offer not one shred of evidence that
modern bullfighting is in any way similar or connected to the
Mithraic bull worshiping cults. In fact, the articles on Wikipedia
and other online encyclopedias contradict themselves on this issue.
Wikipedia plainly states that bullfighting must be related to Minoan
bull-leaping, Greek bull sacrificing, and Roman gladitorial sports...
but offers not one link between these things and the Spanish
animal-husbandry practice of killing excess bulls (which all cultures
do). Later in the article, we read this:
“French
ethnologist Dominique Aubier considers that there is no relationship
between the Greek sacrifice which is an agricultural ritualistic
celebration and the bullfight which is in Spain of pure
paleontological hunting origins.”
So
there is no evidence that Spanish bullfighting developed from
anything more than the logical process of killing bulls for Agrarian
reasons. As I said before, every culture that utilizes animal meat
as a main source of food and/or income, must deal with a very glaring
fact... the production of males in equal numbers as the production of
females demands that the excess males be killed for meat and for
hides, while most of the females are spared for a time because they
are used for further procreation, or for milk production, etc.
Chicken farmers (even small-scale ones) must ritually kill excess
roosters. Pig farmers will castrate and harvest excess male pigs.
Cattlemen will castrate and then kill excess bulls/steers for meat.
In Spain from the 5th Century until the 18th Century, it
was very expensive and very dangerous to kill bulls. The particular
breed of bull that was most common in Spain was the toro bravo,
which was a brave, aggressive, and very hard to kill bull. The toro
bravo stood very tall at the front end, with horns that pointed
dangerously forward and which were very amenable to killing or
destroying whatever made the bull mad. This breed of bull had a very
thick neck, with a large amount of muscle surrounding the upper spine
and chest. Going out to kill such a beast was definitely taking your
life into your own hands. Most farmers could not afford to pay
specialists to come in and kill the bulls, so a practice developed
where the bulls would be driven into town en masse, where they
were led into corrals where they could be killed, butchered and the
meat sold, all in a very short amount of time. This allowed the
rancher to be able to pay the bull killers, because he would be
getting paid for the meat almost immediately.
Some
histories claim (probably accurately) that the Spaniards respect for
these brave and dangerous bulls, led to the practice of the taunting
and leaping of the bulls by young men out to prove their own bravery
before the rest of the town. It is precisely because the bulls were
respected and honored that challenging or facing them became
respectable and honorable. As the concept of ritual and tradition
mixed within the process of killing the bulls, naturally, an art soon
developed. Since we believe that all good art should develop from
men doing and being what they are created to do and be, why should we
be surprised that an artistic people created great art from an
Agrarian process? The very ritualistic process of preparing the bull
for the bull killer (torero), developed into a system that
both honored the bravery and ability of the bull, as well as
celebrated those who were able to control and dispatch such a
dangerous animal with great skill.
Just
as the American concept of the “rodeo” developed from the
process of herding, marking, and separating cattle, the bullfight
developed from the process of killing bulls for market. However, as
cattle working in America and around the world became more
industrialized and sanitized, the Spaniards (for many, many years)
resisted this modernization and industrialization for the sake of
their great art. Somehow, the westernized mind is able to accept the
mass herding of cattle into feed yards, and the industrialized and
sterilized killing of cows by the thousands; cows, by the way, who
have never lived the way cows are designed to live; cows who are fed
chemicals and antibiotics, crowded into small areas, mass fed on
processed cereal grains, the killed on conveyors like Model T's being
painted. Most people would not write to me and object if I said, “I
like steak”, even if the eating of steak involved and supported
all of these rather obscene processes. So how much more noble and
honorable is the bullfight? How much more natural is it to have a
bull brought up carefully and openly on massive ranches where it will
live peaceably until it is around 5 years of age, where it is then
honorably and ceremoniously brought to the Plaza de Toros to
be killed while exhibiting its bravery and other natural attributes?
Bullfight fans love bravery and hate cowardice, therefore a brave
bull is just as loved and cheered as is a brave Matador.
Let
me straighten out some other erroneous ideas about bullfights:
Bullfighting
is not a sport. No right thinking Spaniard would consider it a
sport. Bullfighting is an art. It is drama. It is a tragedy (a),
where one of the main actors in the drama dies.
Bulls
are anything but harmless. It is hard for me to fathom how an
animal weighing ½ ton, with knife sharp horns can be
considered “helpless”. Thousands of matadors and other
bullfighters have died in the performance of their art. Most art
would be far more interesting, and most artists would be more
respected if it were possible that they might be killed during the
performance of their art. In fact, I believe we would have far
fewer wicked artists, and far less wicked art, if the performance of
the art might lead to the immediate death of the artist.
The
choice is not between death or life for these bulls. These bulls
must and will be killed, and they are killed in every single culture
that utilizes beef as a source of food. The choice is between
Art/Agrarianism or mechanized industrialism. The bull is going to
die either way.
Bullfighting
enthusiasts are not celebrating the death of the animal, or
gleefully participating in “bloodsport”. True bullfight
fans are not “entertained at the expense of helpless animals”,
any more than a man appreciating a beautiful house is being
“entertained at the expense of helpless trees”, or
someone eating a chicken pot pie is guilty of being “fed at
the expense of helpless chickens”. Bulls are put here for our
use, and their purpose is to provide us food. If the killing of
bulls towards that purpose can be done honorably and artfully while
celebrating the natural attributes of a brave animal – then we
should appreciate that over the industrialized method.
We
should also note that we can often know when a thing might be of
value by the enemies that thing earns. The Papacy pronounced
anathemas and cursings upon bullfighting (just as they have
anathematized Protestants) because it stood in the way of the
industrialization of meat production. (Please keep in mind that “on
November 20th, 1567, Pope Pius the Fifth issued a Papal
edict excommunicating all Christian princes who should permit
bullfights in their countries and denying Christian burial to any
person killed in the bull ring” (Hemingway, Death in the
Afternoon)). Bullfighting was a true art that was never patronized
by the Antichrist of Rome. Bullfighting is attacked by all those who
hate Agrarianism, and all those who would elevate animals and who
encourage sin by the inordinate and unnatural personification of
beasts.
The
point of this article is not to encourage the reader to study or
appreciate bullfighting. The purpose of this piece is to encourage
us to think differently, and to shed our colonized thinking.
Biblical Agrarianism is a worldview that should penetrate every
single area of our lives. Agrarians are not a people without a love
for art. We invented art. God has given us dominion over the
creation, and we should see the beauties of God in everything we do.
Everything we do involves drama, music and poetry; we just have to
stop thinking like the world thinks.
But
of course, this is just my opinion.
Your
servant in Christ Jesus,
Michael
Bunker
DISAGREE? Discuss or Debate this: Forum
Read more like this: Bunker
Mentality Archives
Proceed back to the Homepage...
Back to the top!