• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Irwin robbed Nature of its wildness

Hypancistrus

Hypancistrus

New member
Irwin robbed Nature of its wildness

What do you all think of this article?

"Unlike Attenborough and his ilk, who seek to bring us the natural world in all its dimensions, Irwin demonised wildlife and ultimately defanged it."

I disagree very strongly with the quote. While I have a great respect for Attenborough's works, my students find them utterly dull and boring, as do my parents. Steve Irwin brought wildlife to the masses, as opposed to limiting it to us whacko's who think reptile documentaries are a good way to spend a Friday night.
 
All during history, whenever someone does something different from the norm, they basically get called a psycho. No one likes independents in a presidential campaign because they are not the normal Democrat/Republican. In ancient Greece, when Socrates tried to teach children of different ways of thinking, he was charged with heresy and local youth. He was executed.
Basically, no one likes things that are different.

I completely disagree with the article. He was different, but different doesn't necessarily mean bad. His shows might have changed the "concept" of nature a little, but he did get more people interested in reptiles and other animals, right? No one wants to watch some boring old documentary on a hydra or something. Steve just spiced things up a bit. :)
 
Interesting point of view expressed in the article. If I had to guess, I'd say it was written by someone who didn't watch very many episodes of Irwin's shows. As for the quote about taking wildness out of nature ... where I grew up, Steve Irwin would have called a wildman.

It looks to me like yet another person trying to distinguish themselves by shortchanging a dead man's accomplishments because they haven't the talent or knowledge to do so by any other means.
 
ARTICLE said:
Irwin was indulging in the lowest form of anthropomorphism: the animal as bad guy.
Click to expand...

This is the part of the article with which I most take issue. I wasn't the biggest Irwin fan, and I've even been known to speak ill of him regarding some of his "provocative" behavior when in contact with wild animals. But I still think that when he portrayed an animal as a "bad guy", his primary purpose was to foster respect for the animal. Despite being very critical, I always perceived it that way. :shrugs:
 
Kitty said:
It looks to me like yet another person trying to distinguish themselves by shortchanging a dead man's accomplishments because they haven't the talent or knowledge to do so by any other means.
Click to expand...

Sad but true.
Set a level for youself to reach.
 
WTF? Is it human naure to bash someone after they're gone so they can't defend themselves? If so, I secede. Later dudes. :wavey:
 
The thing that cheeses my cracker...

mbdorfer said:
WTF? Is it human naure to bash someone after they're gone so they can't defend themselves? If so, I secede. Later dudes. :wavey:
Click to expand...
is how quickly these things come about. Before the body is even cold folks are out to bring down the individuals legacy.
I agree with Dean. And quite frankly I wouldn't want to have been around Steve. People who jump around and bounce off walls annoy me. But I can't deny his contributions to conservation and education. I respected him for that. I to thought it a matter of time and ironic he was apparently doing nothing to this animal. It irks me to see people already set to tear him down.
Mike, did you happen to hear Cowhead the next day?
:-offtopic There is a show at the end of this month?
 
I just meant...

he usually would run over and lift up, push down whatever the case was an animal. Sad, this was just a "lucky shot."
I feel for the kids. God Bless Teri and the job she has ahead of her.
 
Roy Munson said:
But I still think that when he portrayed an animal as a "bad guy", his primary purpose was to foster respect for the animal. Despite being very critical, I always perceived it that way. :shrugs:
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's how his behavior came off to me as well. This is just another criticism that is untimely and in poor taste. Of course, there are folks who have issues with his style. It doesn't matter who you are talking about and how well liked they are, someone out there in the world is going to have a problem with them. This attitude that we've all been done a favor and that we should rejoice because Steve Irwin is gone and no longer a menace and danger to the animal kingdom is ridiculous in my view.
 
I think the fact that this man has an entire planet mourning his loss speaks volumes for his accomplishments. Love him or hate him, you cannot deny the positive changes he made in the awareness the general public has for wildlife. I personally thought he was a great man, and applaud his methods. I heard a quote on the radio today that he captivated adults and eventually gained the viewership of children. I think it was the complete opposite. His methods and 'flamboyance' captivated the youth of today forcing adults to pay attention to what he was doing. Interestingly enough, it's mainly adults in the population that have a problem with his methods! :shrugs:

It's a sad week in the animal world.
D80
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top