Boshingtang - Body Preservation Stew - is a Korean delicacy, basically it's dog
stew, variously also known as Boshintang, Boshin Tang, Pooshingtang, Pooshintang
and other variations on the theme.Yummy. I can already visualise vegetarians throwing up on their
muesli just at the thought of it.
Vegetarian campaigners do have the moral high ground here. They are against the
eating of all meat, no matter what its source, and find the killing of any
animal simply for food abhorrent. It is quite reasonable that they should find
the thought of boshingtang offensive.
Those who have no problem with the meat eaters of this world, but are concerned
about the way animals are treated while being fattened up, and transported to
the factories where they will be turned into the dish of the day, have my
support. Whether an animal's final destination at our dinner table is right
or not, there is no reason that animals shouldn't be treated reasonably in their
brief lives.
Other so-called animal rights activists have less of a right to be outraged.
Those who are only concerned about the eating of dogs in Korea, and elsewhere,
but are not concerned about the plight of other animals which they are happy to
consume are hypocritical at best.
Campaigns to stop people eating whale, panda paws, tiger penis and the like, are
entirely valid. Enjoyment of these delicacies is wiping whole species off the
face of the earth. The aim is to preserve these animals for the enjoyment of
future generations.
Attacking those who eat a food which we don't like, or believe shouldn't be
eaten, is entirely different.
The Koreans passion for dog stew has frequently become a target from western
idealists, and as often has been the case, Brigitte Bardot leads this cause
celeb.
"Korea needs to listen to what foreigners say about the eating of dog meat as
it harms Korea's image", Bardot told radio listeners in Korea.
"Dogs are humans' friends, not animals for food, helping the blind walk, so
eating dog meat is like eating humans".
Korean radio presenter, Chin Sun Kim, was reportedly unimpressed by her
argument; "Who you think you are; Mista Doolittle ? You crazy. You old bat. You
go back to Eurodisney".
Claiming that eating dog was effectively cannibalism is not going to wash with
the Koreans who have been eating it for years, and many see it as a national
dish, although its part of the 'culture heritage' is more recent than most
would imagine.
Yes, they accept that some dogs have been treated badly, and some have
been killed in ways which are not acceptable. Even the Korean government has
expressed concern over treatment and killing methods,
but these are dogs bred for eating, not pets which westerners gather round
them like ersatz children.
Bardot's view, and that of her supporters, is narrow minded and prejudiced. It
is focused almost entirely against practices that they find offensive, but not
against those which they do not. They have no problem with eating beef or any
of the other weird and wonderful animals around the world, but dog; that's one
step too far.
But is it ? Why should the eating of dog be any more offensive than the eating
of beef in the UK and America ? The cow is a sacred symbol to many, but
we have no respect for their opinion. The treatment of cattle, and other
animals, in UK slaughter houses leaves a lot to be desired, and I'm sure that
the removal of frog's legs is not the most pleasant of events which befall the
animal.
Many westerners would rather starve to death than consider eating penis,
testicles, sheep's eyes, monkey brain, cows stomach or jellied eel, but there
is no argument that it's wrong to do so, or concerted effort to stop those who
do, except from the vegetarians, who are entirely consistent in their views.
Bardot's outrage at the Koreans is narrowly focused. It is based upon her belief
that the dog is man's best friend, and it can be nothing else. It is not a
suitable ingredient for a main course. This makes for a particularly western
view of the culture of Asia, but of course, westerners are superior, and always
right when it comes to such matters. Such a view from this actress turned
activist is not surprising; she has been found guilty, and fined three times,
for the crime of inciting racial hatred.
Bardot's views may be specifically personal, and not much short of xenophobic,
but she's managed to drag a large number of people along for the ride. It's
impossible to tell how many have examined her philosophical beliefs or, having
heard her outrage about eating dog, have dutifully sent their indignant
pre-printed postcards of complaint off without even thinking about the cause.
Why FIFA have become converts to the cause is difficult to see. They had no
problem with Spanish cat stew during the 1982 Word Cup, and no calls were
made to outlaw bull's testicles in Atlanta or the eating of reindeer in Norway
during the Olympic Games. Why no comment on intensive battery farming in
Britain, or the production of Fois Gras in France ?
Until Bardot and the rest of her followers open their minds and accept that, if
it is wrong to eat dog in Asia, it must be wrong to eat other animals in the
west, then I have no truck with her argument.
In a rather provocative argument, Frame Game, asked in one of it's
columns; Why, if it's illegal to have sex with animals, is it okay to kill
them ?
When the Bardot clan come to the obvious conclusion that it must be wrong to
eat all meat, I will respect their view, even if I don't go along with it at
present.
Until then, Bardot, and her on the bandwagon supporters,
can shut the f--k up, leave the Koreans alone, and stop
trying to impose western values on a foreign culture, which is doing nothing
wrong.
If we get so upset when Johnny Foreigner sticks his nose into our
affairs, why are we so surprised at the response when we stick our nose in his ?
