|
April 23, 2010
Is primate primitivism a form of simian relativism?
I know I shouldn't watch TV, but in the wee hours of the morning the other night, I woke up, went downstairs and turned on the damned thing in the hope of inducing drowsiness. As I flipped through the channels, my attention was drawn to one of those sensationalistic animal attack programs, this one being about attacks on humans by pet chimpanzees. Now, I think anyone who keeps a chimp as a pet has a huge responsibility, and probably ought to be very rich, with plenty of space, as well as a hired keeper to help, because these animals are intelligent and dangerous, and they can become very neurotic in captivity. But that does not mean I think there should be yet another federal law (which is proposed, but not yet passed) making it a felony to have a pet chimp! Policing pets in private homes -- no matter how dangerous they are -- is just not the federal government's business. But my libertarian disgust makes me digress. The propriety of federal legislation is not what this post is about. What intrigued me about this program was the especially horrendous -- and especially tragic -- nature of a particular attack, as well as the reactions of people to it. The story began with a baby chimp adopted in 1967 by a kindly American who was visiting Africa when he happened upon the baby attempting frantically to nurse off his mother's dead body (she had been killed by poachers). This moved the American deeply, and he adopted the baby, naming him "Moe" and bringing back to be raised like a human baby by him and his wife, who lived in the Los Angeles area. They certainly did about as good a job as can reasonably be done with a chimp, for Moe reached adulthood, and it wasn't until he was in his thirties that problems developed, and he bit people. Not his adoptive parents, but a police officer and a woman who had been warned not to put her hand in his cage but did so anyway. This resulted in the city of West Covina going in and forcibly removing Moe from his loving home, and taking him to chimp sanctuaries where he was apparently grieving for his adoptive parents, and they for him. Endless litigation to get Moe back ensued (replete with neighbor petitions demanding him back), and the couple spent huge amounts of time driving back and forth from these sanctuaries. The gruesome attack occurred at a sanctuary in Bakersfield, in 2005. It was Moe's birthday, and they showed up to celebrate with cake, which they were sharing with Moe, who was locked in a cage, and who was not the attacker. The attackers, two teenage chimps with known violent backgrounds, were roaming free, and they were apparently provoked when the woman made the mistake of meeting the gaze of one of them. He flew into a rage, bit off her thumb and part of her hand, and when the husband intervened to save his wife, the pair literally tore him to pieces. Poor Moe simply stared at all of this from inside his cage. As the woman related the details, showing what was left of her hand, I assumed in my only half-awake state that her husband had died, for surely no one would survive such injuries. I went back to bed. The next day, using Google, I learned I had been mistaken. Incredibly, the man did survive. Minus his nose, his face, his buttocks, many fingers, parts of his legs, and both testicles. From a 2005 account titled "The Animal Within -- They Tamed Moe. But Two Other Chimps Heeded the Brutal Call of the Wild": She cut two pieces of cake. When St. James handed one to Moe through an opening in the cage, the chimp dug in immediately, smearing blue icing all over his lips.At the time of the article the man was clinging to life in a medically induced coma. He lived, and (via Overlawyered) there's a gruesome picture of what he looked like when he finally left the hospital. (Trust me, it's AYOR.) This guy should have been dead, and the ability of medical technology to save people from horrendous injuries never ceases to amaze me. What fascinates me the most, though, is the way humans react: Why did they do it?Now that is an excellent point. It is the fact that this was a chimpanzee attack that makes it so especially horrifying. If a tiger mauled someone in the same way, sure there'd be horror expressed over the tragic injuries, but no one would say "imagine a tiger attacking a person like that!" Even a vicious dog attacking and mauling a person does not generate the same almost instinctive feeling of horror, because we recognize that dogs are domesticated predators, and to that extent, are not fully "like us." Simians are, because we are simian. Moreover, we have been (at least, much of the baby boom generation was) heavily influenced by the National Geographic, Jane Goodall style romanticizing of our closest simian relative, and there's a sort of worship of them that's evocative of the "noble savage" nonsense. But it would be simplistic to say that we are horrified by the chimp attacking because we think they are "like us." Because if a human did the same thing, most people would recoil and call the attacker a vicious, insane psychopath, with those who believe in capital punishment demanding that such a monster be executed ASAP. The irony, of course, is that even the most cursory look at human history reveals that humans have maimed and mutilated -- and continue to maim and mutilate -- far, far more human beings than do our closest simian relatives. If we compare the odds of being savagely mutilated by chimpanzees with the odds of being savagely mutilated by people -- even in an area populated by both chimps and humans -- it's a no-brainer to lay the money on human attackers. This is not to say that humans are "worse" than chimps, for we are not. Humans have developed (or, at least, we are supposed to have developed) what is called civilization, with rules and standards for civilized human behavior. Chimps have not, nor can they. They will always retain the capacity for being brutal simian killer apes -- even if we have mythologized this away in what I would call a classic example of simple denial. As to what's behind the human need for this denial, perhaps it is fear. Not of apes, but of ourselves -- in our primitive, pre-civilized evolutionary state. For some strange reason I can't quite penetrate, we seem to want the apes to be "better" than we are. Perhaps it is related to the love of all things primitive, and the ridiculous idea that children are "innocent." And if apes are in fact as capable of murderous and vicious atrocities as adult human beings are, then there's nothing "better" about being in a childlike and primitive state. So out goes that myth. Furthermore, if we are horrified to see our closest relatives in the animal kingdom showing the same primitive dark side that humans have but generally keep under control, it might also be because we worry about ourselves, and need the myth that our closest relatives are not like us but are actually peaceful creatures -- thus creating the narrative that our violent tendencies are somehow "unnatural." Back to Professor Stanford: The chimps were out of their cage, and out of their comfort zone. Moe was the new, threatening male on the scene who needed to be taken down a peg, but they couldn't get at him. So "they attacked the first individuals they came across who were in their immediate territory."The more human such behavior looks to us humans, the more shattering it is to the myth. posted by Eric on 04.23.10 at 02:03 PM
Comments
Let me add that most fundamentally an abundant food supply allows us to be civilized. A week or two without food or a month on severely reduced rations will eliminate most civility from most people. I found myself in that place once and thought "how odd". But with large numbers in that condition it wouldn't be odd. It would be dangerous. M. Simon · April 24, 2010 06:24 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2010
March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Birther State
Some people give me the urge to void! Is primate primitivism a form of simian relativism? "Leave-me-alone politics." Oxymoron or Tea Party? too big to be accountable (and other lessons in corporate anarchy) Bigoted, bombastic, and brutal buffoonery Bye, Bi love saving at-risk babies from underage parental abuse, with UGF! Dancing On the High Wire A sarcastic rhetorical question from a South Park conservative
Links
Site Credits
|
|
This is one of the best posts you have ever made, very insightful and thought provoking.
Thanks.