After I posted my response to Steve Irwin’s death, I followed that with a bit in the comments about some of the reasons why I was not particularly kind in my point of view.  Despite various responses from immature high school students who flamed me as demonstrations of their participation in a debate team, Wayne engaged me on a more mature level.  In explanation of my stance, I said part of my dislike of the conservationaist’s approach was that I found “his treatment of animals like commodities to be atrocious at best” (among several other things).  I felt that way then and feel that way now.  While I understand and appreciate intelligent voices speaking dissent—and Wayne has skillfully explained his position with mature authority despite the chorus of harpies that joined him—I still disagree but am not saying anyone is incorrect.  We are discussing a subjective issue for the majority of people speaking out (regardless of what opinion they’re proffering).

Today, Wayne forwarded some news links that, in his words, pissed him off because they explain that PETA and Germaine Greer have both taken a similar stance in their responses to Irwin’s death.  That is, they spoke derisively about the example he set for children by provoking and harassing wild animals, creatures both frightened and threatened by the man claiming to be working on their behalf and for their benefit.  Germaine Greer, an Australian feminist, said,

“The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin, but probably not before a hole generation of kids in shorts seven sizes too small has learned to shout in the ears of animals with hearing 10 times more acute than theirs, determined to become millionaire animal-loving zoo-owners in their turn.”

The reporting source, mind you, decided quid pro quo on behalf of the dead was appropriate by saying Greer’s remarks were “a bitter column aimed at getting her publicity.”  “[A]imed at getting her publicity”?  How objective from a news source reporting the facts, huh?  Not.  Their pitiful and selfish example of bias notwithstanding, I believe Greer is correct in her assessment.  Irwin intentionally or subconsciously aimed his theatrics at children, and what he taught them was to harass and bother wildlife in ways that endanger anyone in the vicinity—in addition to the animal(s) in question.  The bitter person in this regard is the reporter who is lashing out at someone’s opinion because they don’t agree with it.  But it gets worse (or better, depending on your POV).

PETA entered the fray with similar comments.

PETA spokesman Dan Mathews said, “He made his career out of antagonizing frightened wild animals, and that’s a very dangerous message to send to young children.”

I agree.  This is not snark intended to piss off Wayne since he and those like him were able to refrain from dredging the depths of human ignorance while calling their mental diarrhea some kind of debate.  Instead, they offered well-thought discussion, and I respect that.  Like them, my opinion is my opinion and it counts even if it’s unpopular.  PETA went as far as calling the Crocodile Hunter a “cheap reality T.V. star.”  I’m not sure I’d have come up with that one myself since I’m not that disagreeable on the subject, I don’t think.  Still, the sentiment resonates with me.

To conclude, a little something for the flamers…

Both articles note these statements will undoubtedly cause all manner of anger from the pro-Steve crowd.  Who cares?  I don’t.  This bullshit about postmortem political correctness is subjective nonsense to a degree that seems laughably out of touch.  Would I be wrong to say I never really liked his hair?  Or that I had difficulty liking him because from time to time his accent made it impossible to understand what he was saying?  Neither of those is true from my perspective, but the premise of both is clear: Would I be wrong in saying as much?  If not, how am I wrong in saying I didn’t like his approach and thought he did more harm than good?

Besides, I don’t hear the same people telling me I shouldn’t speak ill of Hitler or Mussolini.  Why not?  What’s the difference?  Aren’t they still dead?  Comparably, it pisses off the neo-Nazis when someone says bad things about Adolph Hitler.  Why aren’t they afforded the same consideration in their feelings on the subject?  Is it because we simply don’t agree with them and therefore determine their feelings aren’t nearly as important as ours are?

I call bullshit.  Get over it already.  My opinion is: Hitler was a bad man and Irwin was a bad example.  Why is that any less respectable than what you think about the two (assuming you think something different than I do for either one)?

Opinions are opinions and are stunningly welcome in an open society even when we disagree with them.  Anger is the poor mind’s excuse for lack of reasoned response.  If it angers you, explain why you disagree, but don’t just flame the person and explode like stupidly immature high school students from some backwater little Podunk town in Texas.  (Uh-huh, I’m talkin’ to you, Odessa, and your mindless Permian Panther debate team members who haven’t a single synaptic spark upstairs upon which to form any logical, reasoned argument, so instead they lash out with infantile barbs and insults.)  And don’t feed me the “insensitive” line people seem to regurgitate in times like these.  Again, that’s nothing short of postmortem political correctness that you seem unwilling or unable to apply across the board.  If it’s not good enough for Hitler, it’s hypocritical.  You can’t have it both ways.  In fact, I’m rather sick of the demands to the contrary.  Humans are humans and deserve to be treated equally.  Whether before birth, in life, or after death, they are who they are and merit the same considerations—and that despite who they are.

Death does not negate my right to speak my mind, nor does it override what I should and shouldn’t say according to my own sensibilities and thoughts.  I’m not coldhearted and certainly understand the pain Irwin’s family must be going through.  I empathize and sympathize with them wholeheartedly.  This is indeed a tragedy that is both unexpected and painful, and I can only imagine the burden they’re under.  But none of that changes a damn thing about how I felt and feel about Steve and his work.  The results were admirable but the methods were deplorable at best, and we have yet to see the long-term impact on children who, during impressionable times in their lives, saw this man being successful doing precisely what they themselves absolutely must never do: approach, provoke, harass, manhandle, or otherwise aggravate wild animals.  Isn’t nature in enough trouble from human activities without spawning an entire generation of mindless Irwin wannabes who will spend their later years (assuming they wait that long) subjecting wildlife to inhumane and unacceptable abuse on massively global scales?  You did realize his show was on around the world, right?  Yet, even that fails to address the danger to the children themselves when they finally go grabbing snakes or jumping in the water with an alligator that has neither the time nor interest to deal with such goings-on without striking back.

I will say it once more to reiterate my resolve in this matter: Speaking ill of the dead is no different than speaking ill of the living; and were it a rule, the commandment not to speak ill of the dead would have to be applied equally in order to be valid in any sense.  I agree grieving families deserve some level of respect; I do not believe the family deserves a silencing of all dissenting opinions.  The world did not stop.  Life continued for practically all humans just as it had the day before.  History will mark it—if at all—as nothing more than a blip on the radar.  The lasting impact will come later, when all these children grow up and find within them the will to be just like their nature hero.  The impressionable age is short and quick.  What did your children learn about wildlife in that time?  What comes later must be more abundant and longer-lived to change the opinions formed earlier in life.  I do not think Irwin helped us in ways that are as beneficial as the results of so many others; likewise, I think the harm he caused will be irreparable in who knows how many cases while at least his immediate results help mitigate that concern.

I continue to stand by my original response to his death.  Despite attempts at pitiful invective from the it’ll-be-years-before-I-can-buy-alcohol crowd, I hear the opinion of others and respectfully disagree with some.  Like the results; hate the methods; don’t hate you because you don’t feel the same way; end of story.