Genocide
Jim Engel, Copyright February 2001
From time to time someone, usually a little old lady, will step forth and pontificate on the subject of ear cropping or tail docking. Usually it goes something this:
"Mere cosmetic surgery does not define a dog, a Bouvier is a Bouvier with or without artificial, man made change. A dog will work and act the same, regardless of whether or not the owner or breeder has chosen to mutilate him."
Is this true ? Does appearance matter ?
Let us set aside for the moment the question of whether or not the process is unduly painful or morally acceptable in terms of the discomfort and address the issue of appearance and bearing.
The United States Marine Corps has a long, and some of us believe noble and honorable, history. Yet their business is the most grisly, for ultimately their function is to kill and destroy those who our government, with or without wisdom, has identified as the enemy of the moment. The process is incredibly demoralizing, a confession of the failure of the human race to conduct its affairs with anything which could be thought of as rational and civil methods. Yet, were it not for such men, we would not enjoy the liberty we have and be able to celebrate the Fourth of July.
When these men go about their work they are dressed in fatigues and mark their faces so as to be inconspicuous, so as not to attract attention to themselves. Yet every Marine has a dress uniform too, used only for ceremonial occasions. When a young man returns from boot camp, a callow youth has become a handsome young man, and, at least in the days of my youth, it was not unusual for him to appear in his home town in his dress blue uniform with the golden stripe. And he truly was a sight to behold.
Yet it could be said that this is pointless, that a killer does not need fancy clothing, that appearance does not matter. In the Vietnam era, those opposed to war chose to dress in a way intended to offend a more conservative generation; their tie dyed apparel was a uniform, a statement, just as much as the dress uniform of the soldier affirmed his allegiance to the heritage.
On the frontier of America, the Apache Indian tribe was well known and formidable. Yet what was an Apache ? It is well known that in war women were captured and they, or their children, were integrated into the tribe and in time became Apache. So it was not the gene pool, it was the heritage which defined the Apache, and the customary and distinctive dress was fundamental.
When the American government decided to destroy the Apache because, of course, it was necessary to "civilize" them, they took the children, cut their hair, dressed them in strange European clothing and punished them most severely for using their own language. They were forced to be "christian" ( and I will not capitalize that word ) and to deny the beliefs of their ancestors. In time they achieved their goal, and the Apache tribe is no more; crude and cruel as the process no doubt was, it worked. The progeny were no longer Apache, they were second rate Americans who had been stripped of their original heritage.
This was of course a disgrace of the highest order. This should not be a surprise, we learned the process from the masters, the British, who applied the same methodology to the Scots and the Irish to enslave them. When the British wanted to colonize and conquer the highland Scots, they forbad the traditional dress and it's clan associations. In the end, this was sufficient.
Even in America there are those who would dictate profound cultural change for their own ends and convenience. The veterinary organizations lobby to legally limit what people can do for themselves, such as crop ears and dock tails, in order to create monopoly and inflate prices and thus their profits. Sure, they portray this as for the benefit of the dogs and cats of America, but the fact is that ear cropping has always been within the realm of the medical technician or more advanced breeder and that the veterinary community could better serve by providing education and support rather than create monopoly.
Furthermore, elements within the veterinary community lobby for the associations to ban ear cropping and tail docking as unacceptable as cosmetic surgery. In effect, a small group of emotional activists with veterinary licenses would take for themselves the right to dictate revisions in age old customs and practices. Their medical background and the power of their organizations would take precedence over the rights of the individual breeder and owner to carry on centuries old traditions.
Genocide has been defined as " The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." Sometimes the program is to simply exterminate every individual, as in the Nazi era in Germany. But other times, as with the Indians, and as with the British in Scotland or India, it was deemed sufficient to destroy the existing social fabric.
When the far left political and social movements in Europe seek to ban ear cropping and tail docking, they are not concerned about the welfare of animals, or about pain and suffering. They are like the evil child who kills cats for sport, they do it because they enjoy the sense of power over something they have found to be weaker than themselves, the established canine community.
Their purpose is not animal welfare, it is genocide, the destruction of the breed. They understand better than the leadership of the canine organizations that the appearance is the breed, is a fundamental part of the heritage that forms the emotional bond over the generations of human beings who created and perpetuate the breed.
Just as military men have understood from time immemorial that the military bearing, as expressed in the uniform, is the foundation of the "esprit de corps" fundamental to every viable military tradition, in the Bouvier world the cobby body and alert expression, enhanced and accentuated by the cropped ears and docked tail, is the essence of the breed. To abandon this traditional appearance is to abandon the breed itself.