If you can’t say anything nice…

I guess it’s the anonymity of the Internet which makes some people think it’s okay to rude, mean, and horrible, no matter the circumstances.  I know I’ll sometimes criticize a company harshly on my blog, or I might call a politician an idiot, but I can’t imagine ever mocking or cheering someone else’s misfortune.  I might think Tom Cruise is an moron, for example, because he purports to be an expert on mental health issues and could cause serious harm, but if and when the man dies, I’ll either not speak on the topic or I’ll look for something positive to say.  Um, “I loved “Jerry Maguire” (because Renee Zellweger was in it)”—I could say something like that.  I could also say, “Tom Cruise smiled a lot”, and that wouldn’t kill me or make me a liar.  Odds are, I’d probably just keep quiet, because if I didn’t care for the man, why would anyone want to know my opinion?

I was thinking about this subject today as I browsed news stories and online tributes about Steve Irwin.  I won’t subject you to some of the truly horrible, disgusting things people felt compelled to write, because I’d just be glorifying mental illness.  However, I was nauseated by the number of “sane” people who used Irwin’s death to jump on a soapbox.  Generally, it seemed to be an uneducated and uninformed soapbox, because I highly doubt any of Irwin’s harshest critics ever watched his TV shows.  I wrote last night that I wasn’t a huge fan of Irwin’s TV persona because he was a bit too excitable and “loud” for my tastes.  However, I was able to look past the character to see what an incredible man he was, and to respect him for his experience, knowledge, and dedication to conserving wildlife.  Today the Internet was full of know-it-alls who claimed that Irwin “deserved” his fate because he “harassed animals”, yet nothing could be further from the truth.  I never saw Steve Irwin handle an animal with anything but the utmost respect, and I know he developed his animal-handling skills in the process of trying to save animals that others were trying to kill.  Instead of having Australian homeowners kill poisonous snakes on their property, Irwin would go catch the snakes and relocate them, unharmed.  Instead of letting poachers or hunters kill “nuisance” crocodiles, Irwin would capture them and relocate them to more isolated areas, or would give them a home in his conservation park.  Yes, he “wrestled” crocodiles in the process of capturing them to move them, but I’m sure if you asked the crocs, they much preferred a bit of rope and duct tape to death.

I’m just not sure what the critics want from a conservationist.  I’ve seen Irwin criticized for capturing animals, for touching animals in the process of educating the public, and even for maintaining a zoo (a zoo with great breeding programs for many endangered species).  I guess he was somehow supposed to just love the animals from afar, letting them be killed as urban expansion eradicated their habitat?  Anyone who thinks their child can be compelled to love animals from seeing a photo in a book is sadly misinformed about the power of touch and experience.  Even my young nephew, who’s an animal lover, is most fascinated with insects because he’s able to touch them, to experience them.  Steve Irwin’s work was all about letting the average person experience the thrill of wildlife vicariously, while also teaching love and respect.  He loved all the animals so much, from insects to the largest carnivores, and for anyone to sit back in their desk chair and whine that he “deserved what he got” is just sickening.

I was going to let the online cheering over Irwin’s death pass unmentioned, until Flippy forwarded me a comment from the Chicago Tribune.  Here’s what one person had to say, and she even signed her name and linked to her website:

Steve Irwin lived by the sword and died by the sword. Anyone who chokes, shakes, scares and generally bothers that many wild animals eventually can expect to push too hard one time too many. I am glad that he never visited my sanctuary where we respect the animals with silent respect. Besides zoos are miserable places for animals to live. Posted by: Susan | Sep 4, 2006 5:45:10 PM

Ironically, “Susan” is the director of Tortoise.com, a nonprofit group which is a “permanent sanctuary for abandoned or lost tortoises”!  Their website proclaims that they do education about tortoises and turtles by taking them to schools so children can experience them, they produce “educational videos”, and they even have photos on their website of group members posing with and touching tortoises.  They keep tortoises in a “natural enclosure” outdoors, and rehab sick ones in their home, so exactly how are they different from Steve Irwin?!  They’ve chosen a threatened and misunderstood species of reptile to care for, and they dedicate their resources to protecting it.  They use the reptiles in their educational materials, as they know the only way people will learn respect is through education.  Susan is obviously another person who never saw one of his TV shows, and who has no idea what a beautiful “zoo” Irwin and his family created.  I guess they should have just called it “Australia Natural Enclosure” or something.  Everyone who reads this blog knows we regularly make charitable donations to a variety of causes, and that we love small rescue groups, but I can assure you that “American Tortoise Rescue” will never see a penny of our money.  How foolish for someone to promote their website while simultaneously being hateful and petty!

In closing, I liked Steve Irwin, and I would have enjoyed working with him and learning from him.  To the people who want to use this occasion to criticize him and say, “I told you so”, I hope you enjoy your safe little lives where you know everything and never do anything out of the ordinary.  Yawn.

—————————————-

Here’s a great article about media and public reaction to Irwin’s death, both positive and negative:  Notes on the Death of Steve Irwin

and, here’s a nice editorial by someone who was an Irwin fan:  http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=5&no=315972&rel_no=1

Posted by Leigh-Ann on 09/04 at 08:56 PM

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

  1. I didn’t have a very strong opinion of him one way or the other, only saw fragments of his show in passing, but when I heard the news I did think it was a very fitting end - not in a snotty “got what he deserved” sort of way, but just that, given the way he lived, I bet he’d rather have gone out scuba diving than 98 years old, senile and incontinent - y’know?

    Posted by Helly  on  09/05  at  12:49 PM

  2. I felt much the same way you do - thank you so much for putting it so well.  His tv persona was over the top for my tastes but I respected the work he did and the attention he brought to conservation.

    And also, now that it has been mentioned - yes, I think that while it was an unfortunate accident and a loss for animal conservation…it was a fitting way to go, doing what he loved rather than some other way.

    Posted by prajantr  on  09/05  at  06:44 PM

  3. I’m sure you’re both right… he died happy, although too young.

    Posted by Leigh-Ann  on  09/06  at  10:33 PM
    4. Page 1 of 1 pages

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Next entry: Missy Mae's mom

Previous entry: Steve Irwin, R.I.P.

<< Back to main