HOW DID BEAR-BAITING GET SUCH A BAD NAME?

While war remains a 'necessary evil?'

Whatever Happened to Bear-Baiting?

Popular good fun for 700 years

Dating from the 12^th Century, bears were fastened to a stake and attacked by dogs, or occasionally by other animals. Queen Elizabeth I was a big fan, and at times chose to go to the Paris Garden (called a ‘bear garden’) rather than to the Globe to see William Shakespeare in his own plays. When a bill was brought forward attempting to ban bear baiting on Sundays (for religious reasons, nothing to do with cruelty), she stopped Parliament from passing it. By the 19^th Century the cost of importing the bears greatly hampered the blood sport, and it was finally banned in 1835. The last known American bear baiting was at a South Carolina venue. Its popularity extended to Asia where it was said to be run by criminal gangs and has gone on until quite recently. The Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were behind most of the bans. Note hapless, hopeless slouch of bear in picture. But I still think they missed something.

Why could we not have a Russian bear and a Ukrainian bear substitute for the current fighting? One may say “it’s too chancy,” but then again war always is a gamble. Someone else might note that “war is definitive,” because “they fight until one side cannot continue. So then it’s over.” But that happens with the bears too. “The bears reach a point where one can’t continue, “but the people, the nation protagonists are not disabled by a contest between bears! They might still go at it with guns and stuff after one bear is left standing.” Actually, if the defeated nation retains its militant opposition, the people are never permanently disabled by losing a full-scale war either. Think of Syria.

“But bear baiting – setting bears against one another – it’s too cruel.” – Come on now. Compared to what?

i

But these contests that violently decide the fate of nations need not be confined to bears in a pit. All kinds of contests do the same thing. What about chess games, or a series of basketball games, a boxing match or curling?

We could have a government defense program to develop the world’s very best curling team.

But whether it’s full-scale war, bear baiting or ping pong, the only rational alternative to a conflict is negotiation. Do we really believe that our greatest skill is in killing and destroying, not reasoning? Is our colossal focus on the military actually making it that way? How do we get nations to negotiate? A groundswell movement, a tsunami of opinion in favor of negotiation and cooperation, and against all war

Isn’t war like playing chess with boxing gloves? In trying to do one thing so many others happen. Why are we so nervous about talking with opponents that we’re rather kill them than negotiate?

Boxing is a blood sport. Readers will notice that we’re using comparisons here: the cruelty of bear-baiting, the brutality of boxing vs. the inhumanity of war. Duels are illegal – but what is war but a many-person duel for which vast multinational preparation is always underway?

Seee the man down on one nee? He’s eyeing his opponent. Discretion should be the better part of valor here. Isn’t it the same for international matters?

Bear baiting was a blood sport; war is a bloodier affair. We use “representatives,” usually very young men to fight the wars; why not use boxers or ultimate frisbee players to represent us, and spare ourselves the death and destruction? Or, crazy as it sounds, why not negotiate?

Loren@sciatica.org