Straining Out Lions And Swallowing Genocides

The death of the large, aggressive cat known as Cecil the Lion and the accompanying outrage highlights the profound depths of postmodern ignorance towards the true conditions in much of the world.





It does not help mass hysteria that the cat's killer fits the stereotype for the postmodern evil hiding under the bed. Rich, affluent, white, male. However, the point of this commentary is not to defend him, as there is little to be defended on further examination of his record. It is all about attacking the disproportional reaction. Needless death and killing, regardless of the species, is unfortunate and to be avoided. At the same time, fixating on the death of a cat, in the midst of massive corruption, oppression, human suffering, and in fact, the death of several other protected creatures, is the highest form of collective ignorance yet demonstrated.

To begin, the cat was killed in Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, named after Cecil Rhodes, for whom the cat in question is also the namesake. Many still remember, if vaguely, what Nelson Mandela sacrificed for. In summery, Rhodesia was the metaphorical alcoholic, degenerate younger brother to South Africa in every way. The people of European decent upholding institutionalized oppression and backwardness were exchanged for Robert Mugabe and his inner circle when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe after a brutal civil war in 1980. Not much has improved since, as Robert Mugabe is still in power, the economy of the country has been destroyed, and a human rights record that is unquestionably bad continues to be added to.

Furthermore, the region including and surrounding Zimbabwe, among other things, has HIV infection rates approaching 30% in some places; one of the highest rates of malaria infection and death in the world; considerable water born illness resulting in one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world; a lack of government services in much of the area or simply corrupt government, resulting in under employment, under education, and questionable to non-existent law enforcement and public security. This is only Southern Africa. Go farther north and you will find the largest and least reported genocide in the world in the DRC, which no amount of UN observation seems to be effective in stopping. Go even farther north and you will find the world's youngest country reeling from its own genocide and on the verge of yet more war in South Sudan. These are only a few cases. There are many more besides if anyone would care to look.

But what makes headlines and serves as fodder for more viral posts? The killing of a big cat. What garners over 140 thousand signatures thus requiring the US Government to take it under consideration? Extradition of the cat's killer to Zimbabwe to face charges by the same people who have eaten their share of exotic animals, not to mention the future of their country.

There is nothing wrong with demanding an end to useless killing of any sort. However, it is ignorant and banally evil to fixate on this while not even paying attention to the far greater evil.

Black lives matter far more than lions.

Actually Getting The Chance To Save The World

The real issue with modern politics is not bad government directed policy. It is a lack of initiative on the part of the individual. No amount of legislation will ever change that. 

However, this does not stop those in charge of legislation from trying to change it. Neither does it stop people from having their opinions dictated to them by public figures claiming their policy leads to salvation.


Most policies, whether they be new gun control laws, health care system overhaul, or trying to get the potholes down the street fixed are flawed to begin with because the amount of coordination, compromise and add-ons required to pass them dilutes the original intent sufficiently for much of the endeavored to miss the objective. At the same time, while seeing the effects of the new legislation on the potholes down the street is easy enough to monitor, measures of effectiveness are not as forthcoming with more large-scale legislation geared at more complex systems. However, it is critical to take into account that these limitations have more to do with the nature of the game itself than how it is currently played. Policy is a tool and a necessary one for shaping courses of action and focusing efforts. It is not the same thing as realizing those efforts. No amount of telling someone what to do and how to do it will ever have as much effect as the person making the choice for him or her self.


How much more would the effect of individuals taking responsibility for their actions be if those actions were taken to cure the troubles of whatever communities we find ourselves in? No amount of reposting socially conscious statements on social media compares to actually going out to the street corner and having lunch with the homeless alcoholic. Being faux sensitive in order to keep up with the current fashion is not the same as actually being sensitive to the troubles around you and then action to correct them. This need not be limited to the surrounding community in purely geographical terms either. Indeed the whole world is our community, but not acting on a problems because it has been conceptualized as too big to act on is as much of a crutch to our moral pride as reposting something about social justice and calling it doing your part.


Ending something like Sex Trafficking is as much about making life as much better as possible for the one former victim you know as it is about legislation and enforcement to ensuring the crime never happens to anyone ever again. Ending Global Poverty is as much about the one kid in the slum you have the opportunity to give new shoes to today as it is about UN education initiatives and ensuring economic policy helps rather than takes advantage of the majority of the world below the poverty line, and ending homelessness is as much about having lunch with the homeless alcoholic down the street as it is about changing cultural norms and dealing with income inequality.


When the problem becomes so large that only a new law can save us, there is no hope at all. The problem is in front of us all the time if we look. Each individual determines their own level of involvement. However the surest way to be certain the problem will always be with us is to do nothing at all. At the same time, there are those who demonstrated that no level of involvement was too deep and no sacrifice was too much. How much more could be done if this attitude became more prevalent?