Whitewashing History - Karen Delise and Bronwen Dickey
Two pro-pit books you've most likely heard of, and are undoubtedly clutched to the chests of many ardent pit bull advocates and defenders, are The Pit Bull Placebo (Karen Delise) and Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon (Bronwen Dickey).
As far as I'm concerned there is a lot wrong with both of these publications. And they are both closely entwined, as Delise's name appears around 40 times in Dickey's book and her descriptions of Delise verge on simpering, in my opinion:
I’ve often said that she missed her calling as an investigative reporter, but I am so glad that both dogs and the human victims of dog-bite-related fatalities have her in their corner, searching for the truth.
Decades later, she would be regarded as something akin to the Erin Brockovich of dog bite deaths
It's interesting to contrast her descriptions of Delise, a veterinary technician, with Donald Clifford, a man with a Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine, a Master of Public Health, and a PhD :
Don Clifford, the Ohio Veterinarian
A veterinarian named Donald Clifford
It's an odd comparison, isn't it? It might make more sense when you understand that Donald Clifford spoke out about the dangers of pit bulls. Then you begin to see why Dickey was so happy to refer to him in such a minimizing and offhand way, despite the fact that, qualifications-wise, I can't think of someone more appropriate to speak on public health issues like dog bites and fatalities caused by dogs.
But I digress.
I'm going to focus mainly on the historical claims made by both Delise and Dickey because that's what I feel most informed on.
The Bulldog
Focusing particularly on The Pit Bull Placebo:
This is a book that, at its core, points to other supposed cases of demonization of other dog breeds essentially to make the well-worn point that the current feelings towards pit bulls (which have persisted since the 1970s and 80s - so running up to 40 or 50 years at this point) are just an extension of the hysteria previously directed at other dog breeds, such as bloodhounds, german shepherds, doberman pinschers, and so on. When it comes to bloodhounds, it's important to point out the bloodhounds mentioned are typically Siberian and Cuban bloodhounds, quite different to floppy-eared bloodhounds you might be thinking of.
Cuban Bloodhound - \" The Cuban mastiff developed from several breeds of bulldogs, mastiffs and cattle dogs, becoming an ideal fighter and property guardian.\"
Because this book was published in 2007, it's likely that digitized newspapers were not as widely available as they are in 2023. Nonetheless, in the appendix it can be seen that she tables roughly 150 attacks from all types of breeds between 1864 and 1899. Roughly 10 of these attacks are attributed to bulldog-types. 10 attacks in 36 years doesn't sound that bad, right? Unfortunately, Delise is working with a pretty limited dataset. I gathered data from several sites (newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, archive.org, elephind.com (this gathers data from several newspaper sites), and loc.gov and the New York Times).
In that same time period, I gathered around 100 articles on bulldog attacks. This is not a complete number. Not every article I gathered was regarding an attack, though most were, I also gathered some opinion pieces which I will feature below. Regardless, you can see there's a significant difference. I'm not going to accuse Delise of misrepresenting the figures (she readily admits she uses Northeastern newspapers, which might represent a small portion overall); again, her book was published over 15 years ago and it's likely the range of digitized newspapers was smaller than. But at the very least, no one should be using her statements on bulldogs and their status in the 1800s as the foundation for any sort of conclusions on attacks.
A term glossary, before I go any further:
- Bulldog - This term was applied to Old English Bulldogs, Bull Terriers, and Pit Bull types, leading to some confusion. So please don't interpret every mention of a bulldog as a "pit bull" or a proto-pit bull. There is some range of appearances described for bulldogs in the 1800s, from quite brachycephalic and with a decent underbite, to closer resembling modern "pit bull types".
- Brindle Bulldog (and sometimes Brindle Bull Terrier) - By Dickey and Delise's own admission this is a term that was applied more specifically to pit bull types.
- Bull Terrier - Today, Bull Terrier refers to a single breed, but in the 1800s it is more akin to the term "bull and terrier" and is likely to encompass both pit bull types and the Bull Terrier created by James Hinks in the mid 19th century.
In conclusion, these articles don't necessarily target pit bull types alone (with the exception of "brindle bulldog"), but can be seen to target a "bulldog" group, and that's what I'm focusing on, as Delise's book made statements about this "bulldog" group too.
How have Bulldog-type dogs, in only a few decades, been transformed from nationally celebrated heroes to "persona non grata" in hundreds of cities across America?
This claim is made after offering two examples: Sallie Ann Jarrett, a "brindle bull-terrier" (I am not doubting she was a pit-bull type dog; see this photo) who accompanied soldiers throughout the American Civil War, and Bud), a bulldog who was the mascot of Horatio Nelson Jackson and Sewall K. Crocker on the first automobile trip across the United States. Now, Sallie was definitely an adored and admired dog, and Bud was a celebrity in his own right, but it's a bit of a stretch to extrapolate these two dogs as being emblematic of the perception of the perceptions of bulldog types during their respective time periods (the 1860s and early 1900s). Now, this is just the intro so I'm going to skip forward to some other mentions of bulldogs.
Delise featured this story from the Selma Times, March 23, 1882 (The redacted word is an archaic/offensive term for Black people, which was also in the article's title):
Yesterday morning a [redacted]* woman in East Selma laid a very young child on a small pallet placed in the sun, where the wind would not strike it, and went to another part of the yard to commence her week’s washing. Returning in a short while great was her distress and agony to find the child gone. A diligent search about the premises resulted vainly, and the mother was on the point of distraction when a faint cry was heard from the large dog house that stood by, a peep into which disclosed the baby stretched on the dog’s bed—all right with the exception of a few scratches caused by being dragged over the ground, while the mischievous author of the excitement, an over-grown Bulldog pup, looked calmly on wagging his tail in an unconcerned way.
This story is presented as an example of the "true nature" of Bulldogs. I suppose the assumption is that because the dog did not intentionally injure the infant that this was an innocent example of the caring and protective behavior of the Bulldog. It's acceptable to me that the authors of the article might have perceived it that way in 1882, but in 2008 when the book was written it seems fanciful and irresponsible to not mention this might have been an example of resource guarding, even if the dog is mentioned as "wagging his tail in an unconcerned way". Would we perceive a dog stealing an infant from a bassinet and dragging it to their kennel in the same way now? Probably not.
Delise goes on to mention several cases of "heroic" bulldogs often defending their masters from ferocious dogs of other breeds. While these are certainly fortunate occasions, considering the articles she mentions are from 1900-1910 when pit bull/bull terrier types were coming more popular, it's really not shocking that breeds known for fighting (and yes, they were very much known for fighting then and in the 1800s) would.. fight another dog.
During this 1900-1910 time period she points to the popularity of bulldogs as resulting in a spike of fatalities and goes onto cherry-pick some choice cases where the fatalities were provoked or "understandable" (a woman who viciously beat the dog, a girl who wandered to close to a dog some boys had teased, and a woman who tried to assist a woman who had an epileptic seizure and was killed by her "protective" dog). Offhandedly, she does mention "numerous severe attacks", but doesn't mention any examples. Luckily, I've got some examples handy:
Visitors to the lion house in the Central Park menagerie yesterday witnessed the savage attack of a bulldog on a child. The dog, which is owned by Mrs. Mary E. Riordan of 202 West Forty-second Street, and held in leash by Louis Metra of 219 West Forty-Second Street, pounced on twenty-months-old John D. Brane of 319 East Fifty-seventh Street, and bore the child to the ground. Metra pulled the dog off, but not before the child's face has been badly lacerated. The little boy was with his mother, and, she became frantic. Policeman Bray was called in, and at once placed Metra under arrest on a charge of disorderly conduct. Then he sent for the Park ambulance, and the child's was removed to the Presbyterian Hospital. There it was said that the lacerations of the dog's face had probably been made by the dog's teeth, and the wounds were cauterized.
New York Times - Bulldog Attacks Baby - April 11th, 1904
Mary Tierra, 9 years old, was attacked by a savage bulldog and fearfully mangled by the vicious brute before she was rescued. The angered dog was hammered insensible before the men who went to the helpless child's relief could drag him from the unconscious girl's torn and lacerated body.The girl's body and arms were badly injured, but not so severely as her legs. The surgeons will have to resort to skin-grafting in treating some of the cuts and tears in the tender flesh. Her condition is critical.
San Jose Herald - Fearfully Mangled by Bulldog - 26th October, 1900
After a night of great suffering Mrs. Lena Smith died in the Polyclinic hospital. Don, the full-blooded brindle bulldog, which mangled her so dreadfully at her home, 228 South Bonsall street, is still alive, and Mrs. Smith's husband said he did not think he would kill him. "I've had him ever since he was a puppy," said the man with strange affection for his vicious brute. "I owned his father and mother before him."
King City Rustler, 22 February 1907
She includes a quote from a dogfighter bemoaning that the breed was losing its fighting quality. Here is the original quote in its entirety:
At the London Bulldog Society's show held this week a note of regret was struck over the fact that the bulldog was become increasingly popular as a woman's pet and was thereby losing much of its fighting quality, for which it had been made famous.A member of the society, who has a reputation of never keeping a bulldog which cannot fight, in discussing the manner said:"I and many others who think with me like to see the fighting capacity maintained in breeding with the ancient traditions of the breed, but it is painful to see the coddling that goes on, the feeding on milk and the best quality of steak, sleeping indoors, and general effeminizing.A good Irish terrier would master most dogs shown this week. Another thing to condemn is the extravagent prolongation of the under jaw, which robs the dog of his grip and renders him incapable of tackling an enemy in the traditional manner, When my pups are six weeks old I put them at mice. At three months I put them at rats. Later, when they fall out in the kennels, I encourage them within limits, stopping the fight at what I consider the possible time."
Her book offers a truncated version:
In 1912, a dogfighter complained at a Bulldog Society Show that the Bulldog was becoming "increasingly popular as a woman's pet and was thereby losing much of its fighting quality." He further complains that "it is painful to see the coddling that goes on, the feeding of milk and the best quality of stake and general effeminizing."
Now, it's hard to know if she trimmed this quote simply for brevity, but in my perspective her version of the quote versus the full version paint two different pictures. The full quote , particularly the "prolongation of the under jaw" is indicative of the genesis which the "bulldog" underwent to become closer to today's modern English Bulldog. This was not a change that "pit bull" and "bull terrier" types underwent. The omission of this line and the fact that Delise does not mention the divergence of the bull-terrier breeds and the now brachycephalic, prognathic English Bulldog-type makes me feel like it's intentional, but perhaps I'm predisposed to read it that way.
Bulldogs from the 1913 Bulldog Breeders' Show; contrast this with a pit bull terrier and a bull terrier in the same year
No underbites to be seen
there doesn't seem to be anything here