Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[evenflow1121]

Nice article.

 

[Tgace]

WOOF!:rofl:.......Baaaaaaaaaaaa! :rofl:

 

[evenflow1121]

Thats a cute dog.

 

[Cruentus]

I've gotta agree with robertson, the analogy does imply such a police state. Think about it, sheepdog guard and herd sheep, who just follow, and wolves are predators who prey on sheep (and probably the occassional sheepdog, if they get really desperate.) When you apply this to humans, it does imply the following: (1) some people, the sheepdogs (the few, the proud, the...you get the idea), are meant to protect and guide and direct (2) other people, the sheep, who are by nature meant to follow and be passive and obey the sheepdogs, always under the constant fear that (3) the wolves, those big bad predatory out-theres, are always threatening the flock. These are the resulting implications that arise when you apply this sheep-sheepdog-wolf analogy to human society, and it is pretty fascist. This is true, whether the sheepdogs consist of the State or moral outstanding individuals. Either way, one group is the guide and protector, the other is the passive follower.

I can see that arguement, except for one thing; the speaker does not limit the "sheepdogs" to only military/para-military people. If he did, I could agree with you and Mr. Robertson - but he didn't, so I can't.

To reiterate, he says:

In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

He also used the Todd Beamer example where a band of civilians stood up for themselves to fight the hijackers on 9-11, grounding a plane that could have hit a building and cost more lives.

So, yes it is true that his audience when he was SPEAKING (remember that this was taken from a speach) was at a navel academy, and were military/police personel. This is why he used a lot of military/police related examples.

But, he did not limit the analogy to only them. He does not assert that the "sheep" are not allowed to defend themselves. He instead states that as human beings, we can be whatever we can; that we can be safety and defense minded or not.

Because he opens the analogy up to all citizens and invites us all to be "sheepdogs", it can't be analogious to a police state.

I think what has happened is that many people brought their own personal baggage to the analogy and the speech to assert something that the speaker did not. But I think that if we all take a breath and read it objectively, we'll see that the speaker did not assert that civilians have to be "herded" by men in uniform.

Paul

 

[Tgace]

artyon:

 

[KenpoTex]

Okay, some people have problems with this analogy, so let's change it a little. Instead of sheepdogs which "herd the dumb, defenseless sheep," lets go with wolf-hounds: dogs bred to hunt and/or kill wolves, not to herd sheep. That way we take the whole "herd and direct" thing out of the mix.
For that matter let's just change animals alltogether. Instead of wolves, let's call them coyotes, which is actually probably a better description as coyotes are cowardly little bastards. Calling most criminals "wolves" is giving them too much credit. Instead of sheepdogs or wolfhounds let's use donkeys or llamas; both of which are used by sheep ranchers to "fight off" the coyotes. So the bad guys are coyotes, the good S.D. minded people are jackasses--I know, let the jokes begin. On the other hand, from the perspective of some of the more "enlightened" members of our society, this may be a more apt description for us. but I digress...

Seriously, this whole thing is getting a little stupid. Take the analogy for what it's worth, recognize that there are different types of people: the good the bad, and the ugly...nevermind, that's a movie. For the purposes of this disscussion the basic types are: the sheep, or maybe they shoud be called ostriches (kewl, another animal, ain't zoology fun); those that don't or won't understand that there are bad people out there and that sometimes they have to be dealt with "with extreme prejudice." The sheepdogs/wolfhounds/jackasses-people that refuse to themselves or their loved ones to be prey, or in the case of military and LE, spend their time taking out the trash. And the the wolves or coyotes-the murderers, rapists, robbers, and serial-killers of the world.

Okay I'm done. I think it's time to let this one fade away.

 

[Flatlander]

RP700
Think about it, sheepdog guard and herd sheep, who just follow, and wolves are predators who prey on sheep (and probably the occassional sheepdog, if they get really desperate.) When you apply this to humans, it does imply the following: (1) some people, the sheepdogs (the few, the proud, the...you get the idea), are meant to protect and guide and direct (2) other people, the sheep, who are by nature meant to follow and be passive and obey the sheepdogs, always under the constant fear that (3) the wolves, those big bad predatory out-theres, are always threatening the flock. These are the resulting implications that arise when you apply this sheep-sheepdog-wolf analogy to human society, and it is pretty fascist. This is true, whether the sheepdogs consist of the State or moral outstanding individuals. Either way, one group is the guide and protector, the other is the passive follower.

I think that this:

(2) other people, the sheep, who are by nature meant to follow and be passive and obey the sheepdogs

is the fundamental truth upon which the entire concept is predicated. I must agree that the sheep, by nature, seek to follow one who will lead. Must they "obey"? No. They choose to do so because it is advantageous, survivally, given their nature. They have evolved into this role - it provides them with a survival advantage. It's not a question of must, its a question of should.

Further, (3) is a real fear. There is no question that the wolves are out there. Its in every day's news. Pick your paper, and have a look. From streetcorner to boardroom to government office, wolves prowl. Why? because there are not, nor will there ever be enough sheepdogs. If there were, the wolves would run out of sustenance.

 

[Flatlander]

Random Phantom 700, please accept my most sincere apology. In replying to your post, which was #40 in this thread (previous to the one which now reads as #40) I, quite unfortunately, edited your post rather than quoted it. As a Moderator, I have the ability to edit posts. I made a big mistake, and now your post is gone for ever. I'm really sorry.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

No biggie, I was wondering what was up with the Moved version of this thread on the main Study page.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Uh....those are people out there. You might read about, say, Rome in the tenth century or so, when there really WERE wolves at the door.

2. I'd point out that there is a tendency to use biology as an excuse for the ways we've structured our world.

3. Please provide some sort of proof for this imaginary, "fundamental truth...that the sheep, by nature, seek to follow."

4. Typically, these claims are put forward by those who believe themselves superior, and who wish to justify a certain kind of politics.

 

[arnisandyz]

Typically, these claims are put forward by those who believe themselves superior, and who wish to justify a certain kind of politics.

To read more into this anoalogy of sheep, sheepdogs and wolves, I think you are putting to much focus toward the sheepdog and forgetting about the shepard.

I'm not even going to bring up a wolf in sheeps clothing!

 

[Flatlander]

1. Uh....those are people out there. You might read about, say, Rome in the tenth century or so, when there really WERE wolves at the door.

2. I'd point out that there is a tendency to use biology as an excuse for the ways we've structured our world.

3. Please provide some sort of proof for this imaginary, "fundamental truth...that the sheep, by nature, seek to follow."

4. Typically, these claims are put forward by those who believe themselves superior, and who wish to justify a certain kind of politics.

1. Yes, they are people.
2. Perhaps. What's the point?
3. Watch sheep.
4. What kind of politics are you referring to? It seems to me that the intent of the analogy is to encourage helping, not hurting. Would you agree?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Watching sheep will only tell you so much about human beings, inasmuch as we are not sheep.

And these "sheepdogs and sheep," analogies, oddly enough, only ever appear in police and military contexts, or among right-wing politicians. I guess it wouldn't be surprising if Stalin used it, but then that's hardly the sort of thing that gives the image intellectual or moral authority.

 

[arnisandyz]

Watching sheep will only tell you so much about human beings, inasmuch as we are not sheep.

How about watching people? if you are in a crowded room and yell FIRE!!! I can bet a majority will "flock" to the exits. Some will instinctively know where to go, others that may be confused will follow them. Still others will see where the fire is and try to put it out or help the people evacuate. Nothing wrong with any of them.

 

[arnisandyz]

And these "sheepdogs and sheep," analogies, oddly enough, only ever appear in police and military contexts, or among right-wing politicians. I guess it wouldn't be surprising if Stalin used it, but then that's hardly the sort of thing that gives the image intellectual or moral authority.

It is used in religion as well...(so by your formula the priest that wrote this thinks of himself higher and almighty compared to the congregation?)

Another such analogy I like to use that the Lord showed me is that, since He is the Good Shepherd, I as a priest am in some ways better described as a "sheepdog".

Look at it this way - the sheepdog has to rely on the Master for survival as much as the sheep must. Yet the sheepdog (aka: border collie) has the job of watching the Master for where He wants the sheep to go, and then move the sheep for the Master. The other type of sheepdog (aka: shetland sheepdog) has the job of watching and defending the sheep - or barking loud enough to warn the sheep and bring the Master to defend the sheep.

Finally, if the sheepdog doesn't rely on the Master for food, the dog's instinct would be to turn on the sheep - and most of us know some priest who has turned on the People of God.

So both sheep and sheepdog are owned by the Master, yet there is a difference. And we do describe ordination as making a difference in the one ordained (we call it an ontological change).

Anyway... analogies can be great ways to describe something that is hard to describe - so-long-as we don't make the analogy the only way of seeing something.

"Doggedly" yours,

Fr. Frank (wuff)

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, still not a sheep, don't really want a master, guru or shepherd--and kinda resent (though not all that much) being told that I should.

And yes, in hierarchical religions, priests are "better," than the rest.

 

[Ray]

And yes, in hierarchical religions, priests are "better," than the rest.

I don't believe that is true in all cases.

 

[arnisandyz]

Maybe this will help:

PUPPY = DOG as kitten = _______
The analogy is read "Puppy is to dog as kitten is to 'blank.'" Try reading the analogy as a sentence that expresses the relationships between the words: "A puppy is a young dog, like a kitten is a young . . ."? Cat is the best answer.

Nobody is saying a dog is a cat.

 

[arnisandyz]

I don't believe that is true in all cases.

Have to agree there. Although there are some that take advantage, most men of the cloth see themselves as "servants" of God and his people.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I wrote, "hierarchical," religions. Zen Buddhism doesn't see it this way; most Christianities do. And the whole notion of having a few, proud sheepdogs implies that they are superior to the herd. It's inherent in the image.