[Brazelton] Ringling Bros Circus

[ThatNickGuy]

Ringling Circus closing curtains on namesake circus after 146 years.

On the one hand, this is a shame because I have some fond memories of going to the circus when I was a kid.

On the other, it was a place of animal cruelty and well past its time.

I've wondered for a long time, though, if a traveling circus could exist today, only without the animals. You could still have all the other acts, like a strong man, acrobats, clowns, etc. It could still be a really fun show. But I guess according to the article, attendance dropped when they took away the elephants. Which seems odd to me because without the animals, there are still several things in that 'three-ring circus' to see.

It'll be strange to explain to kids what a circus was, too. DC Comics may have to eventually rework Dick Grayson's origin, too. No idea how they could modernize it, though.

 

[PatrThom]

At least I get to say I went while it was still a thing. Got to watch an elephant piss all over the center ring, too.
Sheesh. First Sears/KMart, now this. Maybe (some) companies aren't immortal after all?

--Patrick

 

[Bubble181]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ringling-bros-circus-ending-1.3936551

I've wondered for a long time, though, if a traveling circus could exist today, only without the animals.

This is very literally the origin story of Cirque du Soleil, so all signs point to "yes".

Whether it's viable to have many smaller ones like circuses before, or only to have a few of the "very good" ones, remains to be seen.

Even though CdS has evolved quite a bit from its origins, it's still comedy/clowns, trapeze, contortionists, juggling, strong men, acrobatics, magicians and tricks, all told. They've replaced animals with music and story, mainly.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

This is very literally the origin story of Cirque du Soleil, so all signs point to "yes".

Whether it's viable to have many smaller ones like circuses before, or only to have a few of the "very good" ones, remains to be seen.

Even though CdS has evolved quite a bit from its origins, it's still comedy/clowns, trapeze, contortionists, juggling, strong men, acrobatics, magicians and tricks, all told. They've replaced animals with music and story, mainly.

Oh, I thought CdS was just hire-wire acts and acrobatics. I've never really watched it or attended one of their shows.

 

[fade]

Yeah, I'm also torn about this one. I have fun memories of the circus, but their notorious cruelty to animals kind of means it couldn't have happened to a nicer business.

 

[Gruebeard]

CdS has evolved quite a bit . . .

Good for him.

 

[PatrThom]

I keep thinking at first glance that he's talking about photosensors.

--Patrick

 

[bhamv3]

I can personally attest to wanting to see elephants. There's a show in Thailand where they have elephants go on stage, and I heard about how they have this big row of like twelve elephants all lined up from one end of the stage to the other. And then when I went to see the show, they only had two elephants, and I was disappointed.

Still though, I didn't think about the animal cruelty aspects of the show, so in retrospect I'd say it's a good thing that circuses and shows aren't using elephants as much nowadays.

 

[Yoshimickster]

How they couldn't figure out how to make animals entertaining with-OUT being cruel during all this time is ridiculous, the internet got that down mother-fucking pat!

 

[Frank]

Good, fuck em.

 

[Hailey Knight]

How they couldn't figure out how to make animals entertaining with-OUT being cruel during all this time is ridiculous, the internet got that down mother-fucking pat!

The thing is, shipping an elephant around in a train, away from other elephants, not giving it a place to roam, etc. is cruelty to the elephant without having to be physically abusive. The circus environment just isn't applicable to a healthy animal.

I get the paradox of people only see the shows for the elephants, but people don't want the animals to suffer, but that's what a zoo is for. Same as Sea World; it's not worth tormenting these large animals just so we can see them.

 

[Bubble181]

The thing is, shipping an elephant around in a train, away from other elephants, not giving it a place to roam, etc. is cruelty to the elephant without having to be physically abusive. The circus environment just isn't applicable to a healthy animal.

I get the paradox of people only see the shows for the elephants, but people don't want the animals to suffer, but that's what a zoo is for. Same as Sea World; it's not worth tormenting these large animals just so we can see them.

While I agree, it's still a fine line. The same can very much be said of many things we do to pets.

 

[Hailey Knight]

While I agree, it's still a fine line. The same can very much be said of many things we do to pets.

On one side of that line is domesticated animals, on another side is wild animals.

Sitting on top of that line are some people's cats, who don't know if they want to be indoor or outdoor cats, but will keep meowing on both sides of the door anyway.

 

[Bubble181]

On one side of that line is domesticated animals, on another side is wild animals.

Sitting on top of that line are some people's cats, who don't know if they want to be indoor or outdoor cats, but will keep meowing on both sides of the door anyway.

Many people argue(d) that trained "wild" animals, incapable of surviving in the wild on their own (captive-bread dolphins for example) fall under "domesticated", rather than "wild". It's pretty hard to draw a line everyone can agree with - people have kept everything from foxes to rhino's as trained pets, after all.

To be clear, I pretty much agree with you, for the record. But it's not because a lot of circuses mistreated their animals, that all trained displays of wild animals are necessarily bad (hawking shows, are they ok?); nor that because an animal is "domesticated", it's OK to abuse them thus (a circus that puts horses on the train or in trucks all year round, is that not animal abuse?).