In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

154 Animal Welfare and Human Values Inuk is a common occurrence we will have to reappraise the much vaunted reverence for nature among the native peoples. Continuing the use of invective by the proponents of fur, Barber accuses his opponents of racism—for promoting policies detrimental to the interests of native groups. It would in fact be more appropriate to judge Barber guilty of that sin in implyingthat we should apply different criteria in judging the behaviour of an Inuk than we would in judging humanity in general. The claim that something is justifiable merely because it exists in a particular culture, or is characteristic of a particular 'race', implies that no argument for change can ever be justified, that nothing can ever be deduced as legitimate criticism. It is comical how often those who hold this viewcondemn the moral position taken by others even though to do so constitutes a direct contradiction of their own argument. This is true of all those who hold to a simplistic ethical relativism, but it is especially comical now that the majority opposes the wearing of fur. If Barber took the logic of his own argument seriously he could not support the wearing of fur because it counters the prevailing belief system—the culture—of modern North America! To argue that those "close to nature" cannot believe in the "cozy view" of treating an animal as an end in itself rather than as a means is to fail to recognize the relationship between the shepherd and his colh'e, the Hindu farmer and his cow or the mahout and his elephant. Who ever heard of the shepherd condemning his dog to death because it had gone lame after a lifetime of herding? Of course, the dog would be given a just reward of a leisurely retirement. And if it were not, the shepherd would be roundlyand rightly condemnedby his owncommunity . Northern English farmers used to trade stories about the lack of compassion of the Welsh shepherds toward their retired sheepdogs —without evidence as far as we can tell (and since one of us is of Welsh heritage we probably would refuse to believe it anyway!). The consequential animosity toward the Welsh shepherd was acerbic. Yet according to the logic of Barber's argument the English farmers should justify the practice as a Welsh cultural characteristic! In the final analysis the argument from culture amounts to 'whatever is, is right'. Clearly, the shepherd, the Hindu and the mahout live every bit as close to nature as does the Inuk hunter but their attitudes to the animal realm are morally superior. The only circumstance which might permit us to avoid that judgement would be dire poverty that would hinder the Inuk's ability to deal compassionately with the animal. Even then, at the very least, the dog should have been painlessly destroyed, not left to die in the snow. If Barber's portrait of the native peoples is accurate—and our experience leads us to doubt it—the fur trade has another sin to repent, the destruction, and not merely diminution, of one of the most admirable Frivolous Fur: Trappers, Clubbers and Farmers 155 characteristics of the historic native community—its fellowfeeling with the animal realm. Although aboriginal peoples are threatened more by anti-fur successes than the remainder of the Canadian community it is not because they live close to nature but because of their poverty and the changes being imposed on what remains of their traditional culture. Most importantly, it is because of the limited alternatives available to them in adapting to new moral recognitions—which are anyway quite consistent with their now diminished traditional moral recognitions. When Europeans first encountered North American natives they found them treating moose, bison, wolves, bears and birds as pets—no domestic dog would have been left to die in the snow. The young were even sometimes suckled by the women though as often as not to provide workers rather than companions. (Traditional Amerindian 'petkeeping ' was not quite the same as our own. Pets were 'educational toys' for the children, aids to teach them hunting attitudes and skills. Sometimes the pets were used as target practice and often ended up in the pot. Nonetheless, they were also often the objects of affection.) The identity of the traditional Indian community with nature is not what it was, and that is because of almost four centuries of involvement with a rapacious commercialism. Even if the decline of the fur...

Share