Good read

BAD COMPANY


I was looking at the very first mention of “Bulldog” the other day in the Oxford Dictionary. It was dated in the 17th century, circa 1647. It was in old English and difficult to read, even though I took a course in that subject, oh so many years ago. I was struck by two things. First, “Bulldog” was spelled “bolddogge.” That made me wonder if the dogs were actually called “bold dogs.” The dogs must have seemed unusual, in that they were not afraid of large animals and would even attack them. They must have seemed “bold” indeed. Heck, they still do. It is for their “boldness” that they were good for hunting and for stock work. Is it possible that the breed became known as “Bulldog” from its use as a catch dog for the butcher? Perhaps “bold” was misunderstood as “bull.” Since the next word was dog, the sound would be the same. We will never know until they build time machines, but I think it is a definite possibility (that the dogs were originally called “bold dogs,” not that a time machine will ever be built!)

The second thing to catch my attention was how the dog was portrayed as cruel and covered in blood, but so was his master, the butcher. He was covered in blood, and the flies hovered around him. The author of the piece was doubtless unaware of the irrationality and hypocrisy of his statement. The dog and the butcher both had a job to do. The dog grabbed the bull by the nose, and the butcher then dispatched the bull by hitting it on the head with a heavy hammer. The dog may have worried the bull a bit, even after it had been dispatched, but that would be merely following the instincts of countless generations. I suspect that the butcher’s dog was perfectly affable with people, and the butcher may very well have been, too. His lot in life was deemed “low” by the writer, but what would he have done without him? Why, he would have had to butcher his own animals – the very thing that he was condemning the butcher and the dog for doing.

I am sure that many readers are as amused and dismayed as I am over the reputation of the American Pit Bull Terrier. We all know that the dogs are not at all like they are being portrayed in the press, but no one will listen to us. Part of the reason for that is the “bad company” that our dogs keep. By “bad company” I don’t mean really bad people, but those who are looked down upon by society. The pursuits of royalty and the upper class retain their good image, even today. That is what the great British biologist T.H. Huxley meant when he said, “I have never been able to understand why pigeon-shooting at Hurlington should be refined and polite, while a rat-killing match in Whitechapel is low.” The fact was that he was speaking with tongue in cheek in that case, for he knew very well that Whitechapel was the domain of the wealthy.

The first Queen Elizabeth is often condemned as bloodthirsty because she approved of bull and bear baiting, along with other animal fighting. She did, as a matter of fact, behead a few people – but only as needed! She is generally considered the greatest of all monarchs in history by authorities who study such things. Most such people attribute her support of “blood sports” to the fact that it was the entertainment of the common people. One of things that made her great is that she was truly the people’s queen, and she looked out for all the citizens of Britain, not just the aristocrats and not just the wealthy. She did not have to defend such things as horse racing and hunting, as these were the pastimes of the royalty and the landed gentry.

A dramatic example to me of how the historical background of an animal can influence its reputation is the status of hounds here as compared to Europe. In Europe only royalty and landed gentry hunted. That was the case for many hundreds of years. The poor were not allowed to hunt because of the fact that they would be poaching on someone’s land, irrespective of where they went. However, in this country, there was a great wilderness, and the land was not owned by individuals. At least, not in the beginnings of this young country. So scent hounds were used as meat hunters by poor folks. Consequently, “hound” does not have a noble connotation over here, as it does in most parts of Europe. Yet, we have better hounds here, just because of the fact that they have been used so much for the real thing. But they don’t get the respect they deserve. Again, bad company.

The point here is that the hounds were owned by the aristocrats and the wealthy. In fact, it was forbidden for the peasants to own hunting dogs, as what would they use them for if not for poaching? I have mentioned before that the Bulldog went under two classifications here. When used as a hunter by the gentry, it was often referred to as a “hound.” When kept by the poor, it was called a “terrier,” as the presumption was that it was for control of varmints. That is a little fact that I have come upon in my studies which really muddies the waters for those who advocated the Terrier-Bulldog cross as the origin of our breed. But I digress.

Naturally, I don’t go along with the idea that poor people are “bad” necessarily, but that is the common association. Since Pit Bulldogs have been working dogs for butchers and farmers, as well as fighting dogs, their association has generally been with the lower classes. Of course, their association with the pit has not helped them. But, here again, the working class is more appreciative of athletic ability and fighting prowess than those of the upper crust. That is not entirely the case, however, as almost any man respects courage in an animal, much as they do in humans. For that reason, the admirers of the Pit Bulldog are not restricted to blue collar people, but that is the trend. In addition, to be perfectly honest, gang members and inner-street youth are attracted to the breed. It was ever thus, even though the breed was but little known until about twenty-five years ago. Howard Heinzl used to say, “The worst thing about these dogs is the kind of people that come with them.” Others have made comment in a similar vein. But none of these people were about to give up on the breed.

Dr. Leon Whitney often made the comment that the best class of people didn’t necessarily have the best dogs. If we want to limit ourselves to the upper class of people, we should restrict ourselves to Poodles and Afghan Hounds. But I would give up dogs before I did that. And I am not willing to blame the poor for being poor when it is usually the case that they are helpless in their circumstances. Young street toughs may seem worthless to us and full of stupid cruelty and hate. But they are human, and different circumstances would have made things different for them. Certainly, the hard-working coal miners could not drop their jobs and enter college. Their families made life worth living in spite of it’s hardships. Often a few good Bulldogs brightened their lives, too.

I recall in the book about Seabiscuit, the very famous race horse, it was noted that a trainer always had a Thoroughbred horse and a fighting Bulldog. Horse racing is the “Sport of Kings” because that is exactly what it was. Only rich people can afford to own a competitive stable of race horses, so that sport retains its luster. The humaniacs may rail against horse racing, but they make little progress against it. The pit dog game is a different matter. It is but little known to the general public, and what information they do have is misinformation. So it is an easy target for our brave animal welfare people. And they use it unceasingly because it riles people up to the extent that they send in donations to the various organizations. But don’t get me started on that. I have already written about what bogus organizations the humane groups are. They do little, if any, good, but they do line the pockets of their functionaries.

It helps if we understand that the attitude toward our dogs is rooted in racism, classism, and just plain STUPIDITY. We know we have an uphill fight, always, in defending the breed. But we must never lose sight of the fact that it is worth defending. A race horse has a certain aura of royalty to it because of its past association. But a race horse is strictly for entertainment. The Bulldog throughout history has earned its keep. And it is often more carefully bred than a race horse. It may not be recognized as royalty, but it is truly the noblest of breeds. And that remains true even if it is associated with the “red light district” of the sports world!

Richard F. Stratton

Gato

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

 

Agreed good read makes one think :confused:

 

Great read...thanks for posting. The more historical information available the merrier from my perspective.

 

wow, makes a lot of sense.

 

Yes...that was very interesting indeed..I liked this part the best...
made me think a little!

And I LOVE this one!

 

Good post.

 

yeah, it makes me have some respect for Queen Elizabeth.

 

Long but very good post!

 

Richard is a high-class author. All his books are good and clear to read.

 

Good post, very interesting read
A couple of pics to go with that....

 

GREAT read! TY so much for this!