German cruise guards shot a polar bear dead Saturday, and it was the first time that I’ve seen the left get this upset about something bad happening to someone who’s white.
Hapag-Lloyd Cruises reported that the Arctic beast mauled one of four guards it had dispatched to secure a landing for passengers on the shore of Svalbard, Norway. The other three guards tried to shoo the bear away, but eventually had to kill it in self-defense.
Oh, what’s that? You want to know if the guard survived? He did, sustaining head injuries and getting airlifted to a hospital—but come on, that’s a mostly irrelevant bit of info, as suggested by the ubiquitous “Polar Bear Shot” instead of “Man Savaged By Wild Brute” headlines ricocheting across the media.
Surely you know that the story here isn’t #HumanLivesMatter, but actually #FerociousAnimalWhoKillsWithoutRemorseLivesMatter. I mean, didn’t you see the anguish plastered across the face of CNN host Fredricka Whitfield as she asked why the bear couldn’t simply be tranquilized? Those magic darts, as evidenced by movies, instantly send their recipients into a stupor and don’t at all require subsequent shots or take time to kick in as the animal becomes even more irate and vicious.
Fredricka’s guest, wildlife conservationist Jeff Corwin, wasn’t so partisan as to discount this reality. He did end the interview, however, by saying that people, with regard to the half-ton, innocent little angels, are, “in their home, their backyard. Have respect [for] them and their space.”
I guess you could say animals have “property rights” via animal preserves, which, to be clear, Svalbard is not. But in what other situation can someone start beating the crap out of someone else and then get universally positive press upon being shot in self-defense? “Police brutality” comes to mind, but I’m not buying it, fam, nor am I particularly persuaded by Whitfield and Corwin’s rationalization of Polar Rampage by saying that the species is “under distress.”
This is the same narrative the coastal commentariat pushes when it comes to riots in Baltimore and rape gangs in Cologne. Wicked deeds are somehow more acceptable when done by those with a certain number of victimhood points. We must not let this line of thought become normalized: it is as ruinous as it is wrong.
Besides, despite the high-pitched wailing of activist “researchers” and their media accomplices, our furry friends might not be as oppressed as you think. From 2004 to 2015, Norway’s polar bear population spiked 42 per cent, a figure which seems suspiciously absent from the World Wildlife Fund’s database.
The Fund notes that the polar bear spends over half of its time searching for food, a metric matched only by the human feminist. But while the love life of the latter mammal is notoriously scant, “not getting any” means something different for the marine creatures: They do seem to be having trouble finding food. Perhaps the WWF would like to donate some of the $2 million it has curiously invested in fossil fuel firm Denham Capital, as documents leaked in May reveal, to feeding the poor things.
For all of their virtue-signalling, it doesn’t seem likely that social justice advocates will chip in; even HuffPost begrudgingly admits that conservative U.S. states, bastions of religion and affiliated charity efforts, give away more money than do their left-wing counterparts.
And you would hope that if they’re not fixing the problem themselves, activist journalists at least wouldn’t exacerbate it by omitting vital information. Alas, it isn’t so. Wading through the media outrage circus, I couldn’t find a single outlet mentioning that Svalbard requires by law that individuals venturing outside of its settlements arm themselves with “appropriate means” to scare off the tundra beasts. The governor explicitly recommends carrying firearms.
It is interesting to consider where precisely polar bears fit into the Hierarchy of Victims, as judged by proportional news coverage. One might wonder why it is that a slain bear generates heaps more headlines than black teens and young adults shot dead daily in some of the poorest parts of the nation.
Is it because the news favours things that are “new,” not just temporally, but also topically? Is it because the press is packed with PETA pinheads who see no difference between the lives of man and beast or, dare I say it, hold the latter above the former? Is it time to “offer” free, one-way trips to remote regions of the Arctic so that progressive journalists and their collaborators can live in harmony with their fluffy compadres?
Inquiring minds would love to know.