I have not said anything about this who situation because, honestly, I don't feel like or have the energy to deal with all of the opinions that will come along with it. That being said, if you feel so compelled to comment, I most likely will not respond. ;)
I am sure that you are aware of the event that occurred at the Cincinnati Zoo a few days ago but if not, let me give you the Reader's Digest version. A young boy climbed into the Gorilla Exhibit, the curious male Silverback Gorilla began to investigate the oddity in his home, became alarmed by the screaming once people actually noticed the young boy in the enclosure, and he (the gorilla) began to drag said boy around until zoo keepers eventually shot and killed said gorilla. Now comes the outrage and backlash. People are angry that an innocent endangered animal was killed, they are angry at the parents of the little boy for not paying better attention, they are angry at the zoo for having an enclosure that allowed that boy to climb over the railing and through the bushes and fall over the ledge. The bottom line, in my opinion? That no one will take any amount of blame for the entire situation.
Let's start with the zoo, to my knowledge there has not been a single incident like this at the exhibit at the zoo since it opened in 1978, I think it was? What does that tell you? I am sure that the zoo will be sued by someone, be it the kids parents or whoever, for not having safety in mind and not caring about their guests but, personally, I think that's stupid. I would rather a zoo have exhibits closest to natural environments for their animals and I would rather be able to see the animals as close as I can, safely, without having to look through chain-link fences or use binoculars. And again, no incident since it first opened in the 70's!! Obviously, it is not THAT unsafe. But let's bring legal charges against the zoo anyway because a little boy disobeyed the rules and a parent wasn't paying attention. I personally do not feel that the zoo is to blame but for the sake of argument we'll say, ok, maybe there was something more that they could have done...but what? And if that little boy was so adamant about "going into the water" or wanting to see the gorilla up close wouldn't he have found a way? Probably. But we'll never know, now will we?
What about he zookeepers and the ones who shot him? They obviously didn't care about him, did they? False. I am sure that deciding to shoot and kill Harambe was not an easy decision at all and I am sure that they are all a bit traumatized and most definitely mourning this creature that they had come to love and who was a part of their zoo family for so long. At first I didn't understand why they did not use a tranquilizer but the more I have read the more I do understand because it would have changed the situation and the dynamic of the situation tremendously. I get it now.
Being angry that an already endangered animal who was just doing what was natural for him, to protect his home and his troop? That's kind of far-fetched. Ok, so he didn't listen to zoo-keepers when they called him...HE WAS A WILD ANIMAL! My bullmastiff when he was alive was very well trained and he would obey commands very well. But you know what? When he became focused on something that was in the backyard that "was not supposed to be there" he zoned in and wanted to investigate and you could not call him off. Or when another dog tried to come into his territory uninvited he zoned in to protect what was his and he could not be called off. Any other time, yes, but those times for instance? Not at all. Do I think that Harambe was trying to hurt that little boy by dragging him around? No, not at all. I think if he had felt threatened by that little boy he would have had no problem bowing up to him and charging him...but he didn't. I think that had the crowd stayed quiet and calm (easier said than done, yes, I give them that) there might have been a very different situation that ensued. Maybe Harambe would still have been shot but that little boy may not have been dragged through the enclosure. We don't know. What we do know is that animals don't understand screaming and yelling and chaos, that is what they do in the wild to alert others of danger. It sends their heads into a tailspin and causes them to try and seek safety or to get ready for a fight. That much we do know from just the slightest study of animals. It's why we don't stare a dog in the eyes, we don't stand behind horses, and we don't charge at a bull.
Now let's talk about the parents. Some accounts say that the father was there and some say he wasn't. It has also come out that the mother had other children with her. Some have also said that she was taking a picture and the little boy was supposed to be hanging onto her back pocket. Either way, I think we can all agree that her actions and, let's call it like it is, negligence caused an already deadly but potentially all around deadly situation. Now, let me interject here to say that I do not solely blame her. I have 4 young children and I know what it is like to get momentarily distracted and negligent. It would be unfair of me to say that I am always the perfect parent. I will say, however, that if I know I am at a place that is going to be crowded and I know that my children are prone to run off (mine are not and they are not climbers but if they were) I would make sure to go with another set of eyes or at least have a plan for wearing/stroller/whatever means I needed. Now, maybe the mother in this instance did have her husband there as another set of eyes and maybe she did have a stroller or was wearing a child, I don't know, I'm just saying what I do when I take my 4 young ones places. But it should not at all dismiss the fact that she did not know where her son was. She allowed herself to become distracted long enough for her son, whom witnesses say had been trying to get away from her to go into the enclosure, to in fact do just that. When I am out in public with my four I am constantly counting my children, "1-2-3-4", so I know where they are at all times. If I have to tend to one of them I do so with each other child in view. If I have to turn my back they all turn with me or we all step away. Now, I am sure that the mother here is kicking herself for all of her "what if's" but it is what it is. As a parent, you do what you have to do. If your child is begging to go into a gorilla exhibit you move on. If you know that he is prone to run off and you know that he is strong-willed you keep him in front of you at all times however you have to do it. So should this mother be persecuted? No. But should she take some of the blame? Yes, she most definitely should.
But what about the two blames that many are failing to place? The blame on the by-standers and witnesses and the blame on the little boy himself. I'll start with my thoughts on this young 3 or 4 year old boy. Yes, he is young, yes he is going to disobey, but that does not dismiss his behavior. That does not "ok" it. We cannot just stand there and say, "Oh, he is only a baby, he doesn't know better. Boys will be boys." No. NO! Ok, he is a baby, but I can promise you that he DOES know better. I am sure that he knows that he should stay with his mother and I am sure that he knows that if his mother said that he is to stand right there and hang on to her pocket while she took a picture or tended to another child that he is to stand right there with his hand in her pocket. So, no, his actions are NOT to be dismissed "because he is a child" or "because he is strong-willed" (which shouldn't that last one be all the more reason to hug him, tell him you love him, but then punish him??). The fact is, his actions caused a rare endangered beautiful creature to lose his life so yes, some of the blame should be on the little boy.
The witnesses and by-standers...because that's what they were, BY-STANDERS. They stood by and watched this little boy climb over the railing and crawl through the bushes. They stood by and watched this little boy put himself in a position to potentially get killed and they did nothing but watch. It has been said that someone stated she thought that the woman next to her was the mother who was going to snatch the little boy up. But if she saw this happening why did she even wait? Why not act, in this case, and then question?? Then we have the woman who just watched the boy crawling through the bushes and all she did was ask whose kid it was? Why didn't she grab him? Why didn't one of those many adults around reach through the railing or step over the railing and call that little boy back? Let's also ask, if these by-standers knew that this woman was the mother, say the by-standers right beside her or the ones who had seen the little boy with her, and that she was tending to another child or even distracted taking a picture, why did they not become her eyes? Have we really become a society so self-involved that we just stand by and watch a young child put him or herself in a dangerous situation because "they're not my kid." I would much rather have grabbed that little boy by the arm the moment I saw him go over the railing or crawling through the bushes, especially if he was right beside me, pulled him back, and had to deal with a potentially angry parent at me for having touched their child than just yelling out "whose kid is that??" or assuming the person next to me was the guardian. After all, you know what they say when you assume (you make an ass out of u and me). So are the by-standers to be blamed? Yes, they play just a much a part in this whole situation.
In all, was this just a "tragic accident"? No. Not at all. It was an situation that was failed from the moment that zoo opened that day. And Harambe was doomed the moment he awoke that day. It was the actions (or inactions) of every single person involved that day that led to the death of that young beautiful majestic creature. I think that we all need to come back to reality and realize that yes, a child's life is one that should be held more dear than that of a soulless animal but it doesn't change the fact that the only innocent in this whole situation was not that of the young boy, it was not that of the mother, it was not that of the by-standers, and it was not that of the zookeepers but that of Harambe, the rare critically endangered Western Lowland Gorilla.
