There has been a major flap in Richmond since two captive bears were euthanized because one allegedly "bit" a child. Columnist Mark Holmberg muses on why the bears death elicited so much more sorrow than the death of a human, and I'd like to offer some possible answers:
Because "‘innocent human" is an oxymoron.
Because we are used to the deaths of humans -— particularly those who've chosen to color outside the lines.
Because we had taken the bears from their home, and failed to protect them from predators.
Because we've not been hurt by bears -— they don't make our downtown a scary place; they don'’t hunt us, invade our homes, violate our persons, or commit unspeakable atrocities. They may defend themselves when we are out of our places, but we are not their prey.
And because the incident that led to the death of the bears was in no way the bears' fault. Maymont had tried to protect the bears by a two-fence system-- a tall chain link fence placed well inside a shorter wooden fence-- all posted with warnings to stay back. The system has worked for years, and would have continued to do so, if an adult-in-name-only had not decided to take his or her child close enough to feed or pet the bear.
What was this person thinking? A bear-- even a cuddly-looking bear at Maymont-- is a wild animal. To place an apple-scented child within snacking range is simply insane. The actual 'bite' was more of a scratch, though, and the parents left without reporting it. It was only later they decided that perhaps they should obtain treatment.
So, why does the bears' death cause greater sorrow than the deaths of humans? It is because they were at our mercy, and we failed them.
No comments:
Post a Comment