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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 18^th 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 20^th, 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