Interesting Article About Reservation Dogs - Jessie T. Wolf — LiveJournal
Interesting Article About Reservation Dogs|
|Date:||November 19th, 2009 07:20 pm (UTC)|| |
That is a very interesting comparison, actually.
I think that they were possibly trying to get at the idea that a dog is more "dog" ie. more like their wild ancestors, closer to how nature intended for animals. Unlike a homeless person, who knows what it's like (in most cases) to grow up in a household with a family, clothes to wear, food to eat and a roof over their head, and then lost all of that luxury... a rez dog doesn't know what it's like to live in a home and be cared for by a person, and given a warm bed and good food, etc. This is just life for them, and they've known no other lifestyle.
Rez dogs are born and raised outside, usually kept on chains or left to roam free and fend for themselves, so they are seen as more wild, or "dog" dog. They're not pampered pets like suburban dogs are, where the owners consider them their furry babies.
That still drives me freakin' nuts, how papmered and spoiled most pet dogs are... people treat them like humans with fur, which is ridiculous, since as you said, people attribute their own human emotions, feelings and logic on a canine mind, which in my opinion is an insult. Dogs are dogs, they are animals with animal instincts and logic, and people seem to forget this and act surprised when a dog does dog behavior (whether that's destructive or otherwise). This is how behavioral problems come up, and as a trainer I do my best to try to educate people about this kind of stuff.
But yeah, in a nut shell, I agree with you. Just thought that the article was an interesting point of view from the normal "Those Natives abuse their dogs, and don't spay/neuter, or feed properly, or provide their dogs with vet care, or love and attention!" While all of that is sad, it's a totally differnt culture, and Natives simply do not see dogs the way we do (Furry children Vs. Animal).
I understand. I'd avoid using terms like "nature intends", because it implies nature has a consciousness and is capable of intentions. It doesn't and isn't. And it shouldn't imply that the harsh way to live is the "right" way to live. :3
|Date:||November 20th, 2009 10:03 pm (UTC)|| |
Right. That was just a figure of speech. :-P Also, I don't think there's really any "right" way to live... there are just ways to live. Right or wrong is determined by the scociety that we live in. I don't think it's right that they eat dogs in certain parts of Asia, but that's their culture and they do it.