The term "Indian giver", considered offensive to Native Americans, is derived from their early system of bartering. North Americans may have misunderstood items of aid as gifts, yet the Natives intended them for trade, and thus wanted them back if no item of equal value was reciprocated. People have passed onto generations how the act of taking something back shows lack of good character, teaching their children not to behave in this manner, depsite their misinterpretation of the historical context and thus, inaccurate reproach, placed on the original act itself, yet meanwhile, ironically using a derogatory misnomer to teach their children about integrity.
If they are so quick to uphold this value of good character, in spite of its derivative flaws, that giving and taking back is reprehensible, then why are they equally as quick to teach their children that taking something but giving it back is acceptable? In the case of a stolen item, an item taken in anger, an act done or word said in revenge, we can all agree giving or "taking it back" is a proper course of action. But what about a puppy?
Often, families adopt a dog, but then return it years later when it is old, or has misbehaved, or sometimes just weeks later because it did not "warm up" to them fast enough. Do we not find this far more reprehensible than any of the above scenarios? What if adoptive parents did this with children? This child has too much baggage, needs too much counseling, is not settling in with our family quickly enough, or has misbehaved, so we give her back. Would we revere those families as we do the ones who adopt children depsite the challenges? And what about the child's experience and feelings on the roller coaster of their dark past, their struggle to embrace an opportunity at a new life, the fear, betrayal, confusion at being returned? It is unthinkable. Yet we do it by the thousands on a daily basis to countless loyal, innocent, vulnerable, and social animals and don't think twice.
Senior dogs are dumped in crowded kill pounds just because they got old, had arthritis, needed vet care, or weren't the bouncy puppy the family once desired. Or puppies are returned because they were cute at first, but then work was required to train them not to pee in the house, chew things, or bark too much. We are willing to go years for an education costing thousands in order to pursue chosen career paths, but we aren't willing to read a $10 book, enroll in one $25 course, spend a couple hundred dollars on an advanced trainer, to learn how to properly provide for a dog we CHOSE to bring into our home? We kill unwanted babies that "accidentally" or inconveniently appear in our womb; in fact, 93% of all unborn babies killed are because it was too inconvenient to properly use birth control. Similarly, though they didn't accidentally appear in our yard, we dump "inconvenient" dogs in pounds to be killed. This theme of "it is inconvenient, get rid of it" wreaks of holocaustic, appalling narcissism, arrogant, self-engrossed ego, and epidemic lack of character, especially to be modeling for today's children, tomorrow's leaders. We cannot complain on one hand that a sixteen year old doesn't appreciate her new car or takes her provisions for granted, and is thus, called a "spolied brat," while on the other hand, she is displaying those behaviors because it was her own parents just a couple years prior that taught her it is ok to take the dog to the shelter since it was "in the way" of their "busy" schedule of work and extra curricular activities, or God forbid, the family is moving. Yes, the same dog they had excitedly gotten for --or even with-- her when she was 6 (most likely from a pet store supporting horrific puppy mills, but perhaps they didn't know about that, but isn't teaching your child to make informed decisions also a valuable quality? Isn't that why we plant things with our children and let them water it and watch it grow?)
Any "it's not the same" or "it's just a dog" arguments fall on their nonsensical face. The attitude that things are expendable permeates all aspects of the culture: Dont feel happy? By all means, give up, divorce, start dating again before you even sign the papers, and nevermind the crying children. The job is too hard? Quit, bad-mouth the boss, take as many smoke or coffee breaks as possible. "Committed" to an appointment but "something" came up? No problem, just be a No Call, No Show, everyone is doing it. There are more "flakes" encased in human bodies than in cereal boxes. The same shallowness why we idolize celebrities who spend tens of thousands in one day while strolling Rodeo Drive with their "green" bottle of highly specialized water and exotic fur stole, while there are starving children in tattered cloth who only need a $6 dollar uniform to attend school but cannot afford it, is the same shallowness that contributes to young girls harming their self image and their bodies, to kids bullying those less popular, to infideltity and divorce rates being so high, to people discarding anything inconvenient or not instantly gratifying.
And others' lives are taking the brunt for the selfishness. If expecting to trade is wrongly accused of being reproachable, what is committing --but then dropping-- the ball, especially when it means that ball lands on someone else's head? At best, this behavior would be somewhere on the spectrum far worse than unreproachable bartering. When we divorce, the person may grieve and hurt, even lose money, but they don't die. When we quit the team, the coach goes on to lead other players. When we "flake out" on an appointment, the inconvenience we cause to others may be annoying, but not deadly. When we back out of an agreement, we may cause hurt feelings or cost someone money and time, but we don't kill them. All of these actions are rude and selfish and not illustrations of upstanding loyal character, yet they are more mild than what people do to "just a dog" every day. When we return the dog to the shelter, or leave her tied to a fence, let him loose in the streets, or toss him from our car, to be found by animal control, we kill her.
She will sit in a cage confused, cold on a concrete floor, scared, insecure, often ill or injured, and often be mis-labeled "unsocial" or "aggressive" just because she cowers in a corner or barks, "Wait! I'm scared!" If she is black or a chow or a pit bull or a rottweiler, all her sweetness will never get a chance to show because no one will look at her. They will be like you -- the ones who go and pick up the small, cute wagging puppy, who will someday be back in the cage just like her.
Our selfish lack of commitment means that lives are not only betrayed, but lost. One day, she will think she is finally getting out for a walk, but soon, her newfound, albeit wary, excitement will turn to dread and panic as she smells the death in the room. They will hold her down and force in the needle and she will die in a state of fear instead of at home in arms who care for her. All because she was old or peed on the carpet or jumped the fence or countless other inexcusable reasons that don't warrant killing a life. If she is not one of the "lucky" ones who is "humanely" killed by the needle, she will be crowded into an oven with other dogs, as they bite and scratch and hurt themsleves and each other to escape the suffocating deadly gas. If she is unlucky enough to be big or resilient, she will survive this bout of horror and endure another round.
Please mean it permanently when you say "I do." Because at some point at the shelter counter, while you feel proud of your good deed, they are going to ask you, "Do you have a leash to take her with you?"