4 ms·

The paragraph before the one you just quoted: "We Zimbabweans are left shaking our heads, wondering why Americans care more about African animals than about Af

The paragraph before the one you just quoted: "We Zimbabweans are left shaking our heads, wondering why Americans care more about African animals than about African people." And the paragraph directly after: "And please, don’t offer me condolences about Cecil unless you’re also willing to offer me condolences for villagers killed or left hungry by his brethren, by political violence, or by hunger." "Please don't care about the animals in my country more than you care about me and my countrymen" is a reasonable request. I don't see anything terrible about it. I'm not sure why you dropped the surrounding context.

trhway 11y ago
>"Please don't care about the animals in my country more than you care about me and my countrymen" is a reasonable request. the animals are defenseless objects of our actions. While people get the life they've built, and specifically what i understand about the Zimbabwe situation - a lot of the issues there are recent (couple decades) self-inflicted by the government upon their people with support of the people. Should US change the government there?
- mkaziz 11y ago
  With the support of the people? Do you realize Zimbabwe has a dictatorship?
  - trhway 11y ago
    i was born in the USSR. People have government they want to (except when forced upon by a foreign power). Dictatorships are the people, and the people do all these things. Dictatorships simply fall apart when they loose real support of their people.
    - mkaziz 11y ago
      I disagree. Dictatorships aren't about single dictators, they're about institutions that lead to the rise of dictatorships. For example in Egypt, Mubarak is gone, but there is another general in place and nothing has changed. Institutions take generations to topple, and not just a season a la the Arab Spring.
  - kabouseng 11y ago
    Actually yes, with the support of the majority. Zimbabwe is in it's current situation because Robert Mugabe started a land grab of the minority white farmers' land and promising to redistribute it to the black majority. This was extended to all major businesses afterwards requiring 51% ownership should be handed freely to locals. This was applauded by the masses, until it all came apart.
StavrosK 11y ago
I don't think people care more about animals than about people. It was a cruel way to kill an animal, that's what's riling people up. If you baited a person and shot them with a bow and arrow, and then hired hunters to track them down and kill them, people would be much more outraged. You can't easily compare "unprovoked cruelty against animals" with "everyday life below the poverty line".
- sweezyjeezy 11y ago
  If that exact story had happened to a person, it wouldn't be on the news in the West. I don't think people care more about animals more than humans, but I think it's very hard for humans to truly care all that much about humans half-way across the globe.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dragonsh 11y ago
Humans are intelligent creatures and villagers killed are a result of encroaching the animals rightful land. There are no condolescence for those deaths caused by one's own mistake. Get out of the animals territory and fight for your survival with those other humans not with poor animals. There are only 3000 tigers left in the wild if a Bengal tiger kills a villager going inside their territory of sundar ban it's the fault of that human not tiger. Here at least American's are being right to care about 3000 tigers or lions instead of over 7 billion humans. This article shows the sick mentality of the people who thinks it's alright to encroach on other animals turf since it's easier. They are cowards not able to fight for survival with their own fellow human. There are no surrounding context in it. It's just talking about villagers encroaching lions rightful forest and pushing them to extinction.
- skylan_q 11y ago
  encroaching the animals rightful land. What is a human's rightful land? Do realize there is no "rightful land" in nature, which is the only sphere in which lions operate?
- maratd 11y ago
  > Humans are intelligent creatures and villagers killed are a result of encroaching the animals rightful land. What are you going on about? A lion will hunt where there is food for it. Even if there's a single village in all of Zimbabwe, it will go there and take the easy meal. There's nothing easier than eating livestock. The livestock is trapped, defenseless, and absolutely tasty. > There are no condolescence for those deaths caused by one's own mistake. What mistake? Existing? > Here at least American's are being right to care about 3000 tigers or lions instead of over 7 billion humans. Can you help everyone out? Please go to Zimbabwe and feed yourself to a lion. It will help the lion out. It will provide several days worth of sustenance. You're a bit more bony than a cow, but I'm pretty sure the lion won't complain too much. On top of everything, there will be one less human around! Win/win!
charlesray 11y ago
The sad truth is...we DO care about their people. And there is simply more we can do for their lions than their people. Because you can pass a law saying "don't kill lions," you can ban the trade of lion carcasses/trophies/etc., and you can make a big dent in the numbers of lions killed. But how are we supposed to help feed their people when their corrupt as fuck government takes all of our aid? This isn't the real world we live in, guys.
- navait 11y ago
  We could start by not supporting those corrupt governments, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_...
  - charlesray 11y ago
    What good does that do? For example, we fought a war to keep Vietnam free and democratic and failed miserably. The Communist regime only began to make meaningful change once we opened up to them.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      First, I agree with your sentiment. Cuba is an excellent example of this. It's one of the last Communist holdouts, and one of the few Communist countries we refused to open up to. Coincidence? I think not. However, when it came to Vietnam, we merely fought a war to keep Vietnam on our side. South Vietnam was not free and democratic, so there was impossible to "keep" it that way. It's possible, maybe even likely, that a victorious South Vietnam would have eventually opened up and turned to democracy, as happened in South Korea and Taiwan. But I think it's important to recognize how two-faced US policy was in these places, fighting "for freedom" by propping up dictators.
      - saiya-jin 11y ago
        US doesn't care about freedom in other countries. They may say so, but action say a bit different story - how can they be good friends with places like Saudi Arabia and worse? what they care about is, are you with us or against? any other position is very hard to maintain, albeit possible. you just need a bit extra finance for that. freedom and good life for vietnamese people was not considered much when that war was planned (beginning by staged US Tonkin gulf accident to get a foot in situation, in good ol' Gleiwitz nazi style). it was all about influence, having foothold out there so soviets don't take it all around, keeping armed forces trained in real life scenarios (train your forces in small war to be prepared for big one) etc. US was very much anything but a good guy there. Saying North vietnamese did worse things doesn't make you automatically a good guy, does it. Nah, Vietnam is just another topic in US history americans should feel ashamed of. Quite a few I met that are not teenagers actually do. And look at result - they lost the war, they screwed up that country really bad (ie many birth defects many years after the war thanx to Agent Orange spraying), and at the end, country found its way to +-democracy in peaceful way, although it took some serious time. But you can't make that much money from selling arms in peace, can you

trhway 11y ago

>"Please don't care about the animals in my country more than you care about me and my countrymen" is a reasonable request. the animals are defenseless objects of our actions. While people get the life they've built, and specifically what i understand about the Zimbabwe situation - a lot of the issues there are recent (couple decades) self-inflicted by the government upon their people with support of the people. Should US change the government there?

mkaziz 11y ago
With the support of the people? Do you realize Zimbabwe has a dictatorship?
- trhway 11y ago
  i was born in the USSR. People have government they want to (except when forced upon by a foreign power). Dictatorships are the people, and the people do all these things. Dictatorships simply fall apart when they loose real support of their people.
  - mkaziz 11y ago
    I disagree. Dictatorships aren't about single dictators, they're about institutions that lead to the rise of dictatorships. For example in Egypt, Mubarak is gone, but there is another general in place and nothing has changed. Institutions take generations to topple, and not just a season a la the Arab Spring.
- kabouseng 11y ago
  Actually yes, with the support of the majority. Zimbabwe is in it's current situation because Robert Mugabe started a land grab of the minority white farmers' land and promising to redistribute it to the black majority. This was extended to all major businesses afterwards requiring 51% ownership should be handed freely to locals. This was applauded by the masses, until it all came apart.

StavrosK 11y ago

I don't think people care more about animals than about people. It was a cruel way to kill an animal, that's what's riling people up. If you baited a person and shot them with a bow and arrow, and then hired hunters to track them down and kill them, people would be much more outraged. You can't easily compare "unprovoked cruelty against animals" with "everyday life below the poverty line".

sweezyjeezy 11y ago
If that exact story had happened to a person, it wouldn't be on the news in the West. I don't think people care more about animals more than humans, but I think it's very hard for humans to truly care all that much about humans half-way across the globe.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dragonsh 11y ago

Humans are intelligent creatures and villagers killed are a result of encroaching the animals rightful land. There are no condolescence for those deaths caused by one's own mistake. Get out of the animals territory and fight for your survival with those other humans not with poor animals. There are only 3000 tigers left in the wild if a Bengal tiger kills a villager going inside their territory of sundar ban it's the fault of that human not tiger. Here at least American's are being right to care about 3000 tigers or lions instead of over 7 billion humans. This article shows the sick mentality of the people who thinks it's alright to encroach on other animals turf since it's easier. They are cowards not able to fight for survival with their own fellow human. There are no surrounding context in it. It's just talking about villagers encroaching lions rightful forest and pushing them to extinction.

skylan_q 11y ago
encroaching the animals rightful land. What is a human's rightful land? Do realize there is no "rightful land" in nature, which is the only sphere in which lions operate?
maratd 11y ago
> Humans are intelligent creatures and villagers killed are a result of encroaching the animals rightful land. What are you going on about? A lion will hunt where there is food for it. Even if there's a single village in all of Zimbabwe, it will go there and take the easy meal. There's nothing easier than eating livestock. The livestock is trapped, defenseless, and absolutely tasty. > There are no condolescence for those deaths caused by one's own mistake. What mistake? Existing? > Here at least American's are being right to care about 3000 tigers or lions instead of over 7 billion humans. Can you help everyone out? Please go to Zimbabwe and feed yourself to a lion. It will help the lion out. It will provide several days worth of sustenance. You're a bit more bony than a cow, but I'm pretty sure the lion won't complain too much. On top of everything, there will be one less human around! Win/win!

charlesray 11y ago

The sad truth is...we DO care about their people. And there is simply more we can do for their lions than their people. Because you can pass a law saying "don't kill lions," you can ban the trade of lion carcasses/trophies/etc., and you can make a big dent in the numbers of lions killed. But how are we supposed to help feed their people when their corrupt as fuck government takes all of our aid? This isn't the real world we live in, guys.

navait 11y ago
We could start by not supporting those corrupt governments, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_...
- charlesray 11y ago
  What good does that do? For example, we fought a war to keep Vietnam free and democratic and failed miserably. The Communist regime only began to make meaningful change once we opened up to them.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    First, I agree with your sentiment. Cuba is an excellent example of this. It's one of the last Communist holdouts, and one of the few Communist countries we refused to open up to. Coincidence? I think not. However, when it came to Vietnam, we merely fought a war to keep Vietnam on our side. South Vietnam was not free and democratic, so there was impossible to "keep" it that way. It's possible, maybe even likely, that a victorious South Vietnam would have eventually opened up and turned to democracy, as happened in South Korea and Taiwan. But I think it's important to recognize how two-faced US policy was in these places, fighting "for freedom" by propping up dictators.
    - saiya-jin 11y ago
      US doesn't care about freedom in other countries. They may say so, but action say a bit different story - how can they be good friends with places like Saudi Arabia and worse? what they care about is, are you with us or against? any other position is very hard to maintain, albeit possible. you just need a bit extra finance for that. freedom and good life for vietnamese people was not considered much when that war was planned (beginning by staged US Tonkin gulf accident to get a foot in situation, in good ol' Gleiwitz nazi style). it was all about influence, having foothold out there so soviets don't take it all around, keeping armed forces trained in real life scenarios (train your forces in small war to be prepared for big one) etc. US was very much anything but a good guy there. Saying North vietnamese did worse things doesn't make you automatically a good guy, does it. Nah, Vietnam is just another topic in US history americans should feel ashamed of. Quite a few I met that are not teenagers actually do. And look at result - they lost the war, they screwed up that country really bad (ie many birth defects many years after the war thanx to Agent Orange spraying), and at the end, country found its way to +-democracy in peaceful way, although it took some serious time. But you can't make that much money from selling arms in peace, can you