ABC’s The Practice and Santería
ÓMiguel W. Ramos, Ilarí Obá, Obá Oriaté
On November 17th,
ABC’s weekly legal drama “The Practice” aired a program titled “Small Sacrifices” that dealt with the issue
of animal sacrifice in Lukumí religion.
It is my understanding that before the airing, a number of Olorishas
circulated an Internet petition protesting the program’s content, arguing that
it was offensive to devotees. Though I
am told I was listed among the protesters, I never signed the petition and
chose to abstain until seeing the program.
Even if we as a religious community differ with many displeasing aspects
of the dialogue and portrayal, the overall presentation was apparently fair. This does not mean that the program was
flawless as there are more objectionable issues raised by the program than
positive ones.
We ideally should not have any
complaint about the way in which the subject was treated—or not treated. It was my impression that the producers
tried to present a fair rendition of the subject matter—primarily the issue of
cruelty and animal sacrifice, as practiced in our religion. In fact, it can be argued that they tried
to defend our religious rights—and by extension all religious rights—by making
it very clear in the dialogue that the religion was not on trial. In America, everyone has the freedom to
worship in any way they choose, or so it was argued. But by the same token, the religion was never discussed. It was placed on trial, defended and
accused, judged—in many ways—and acquitted, but never presented to the audience
in any comprehensible fashion. Our
portrayal was weak and doomed from the outset.
The impression that was left painted a picture of Lukumí religion as an
insignificant animal-slaughtering religion— ¿cult? —practiced by barbarians from the Caribbean, not yet civilized
by American standards!
In all fairness, it seems the
producers wanted to make clear distinctions between animal cruelty and
worship. During the scene in which the
defense attorney is attempting to clarify the issue of cruelty—or the lack of
it in her client’s case—they presented a video during the testimony of a
spokesperson for the Humane Society.
The video presented the harsh reality of American slaughterhouses that
provide the meats the majority of Americans eat and other examples of animal
use or abuse in American society. The
message that was propelled by the video, though, makes us just one more
participant in the group of “animal exploiters.” The defense counsel’s argument was admirable. Yet interestingly enough, though she
presented it superbly, it did not change her opinion that the practice of
sacrifice was hideous. The Society’s
spokesperson’s ending comments summed it up: “Yes, but you still slaughter
them!”
Certain depictions were
objectionable, but not necessarily insulting.
Though I can understand the need for sensationalism, the scene in which
the prosecutor plays a video depicting a sacrifice was too Hollywood-esque. It reminded me of the Cleopatra Jones’ film
of the 1970s and the Steven Segal films of the 1990s that presented clichéd
depictions of zombies and Vodún in the traditional Hollywood style. The stereotypical presentation of a black
priest was something that gave the false impression that descendants of Africans
in the Americas are the only ones who practice this religion. I most definitely do not mean to downplay
the importance of Africa’s descendants, something that would be absurd on my
part. But the subliminal message
inherent in this aspect only serves to propagate the notion of the religion’s
foreignness and distance it from America and Americans: This is something they
do! To make matters worse, in the end,
the priest is apologetic. In fact he
practically agrees with his defense attorney that the notion of sacrifice is
repugnant. And let us not forget the
priest’s joke about sacrificing “six kids (another English word for goats)!”
The point that American society
in general disapproves of our sacrificial practices was definitely
overstated. The term “repulsive” seems
to have been the word of choice. When
the jury renders its final verdict, and its spokesperson declares the priest
not guilty, in essence liberating him to continue practicing his abhorrent ritual,
the condemning look that she gives to the priest was atrocious and downright
pathetic. If looks could kill, she
would have been the next one on trial!
Adding offense to offense, the priest who all this time has been
sidelined thanks his lawyer and then apologizes to her implying that he too has
mixed feelings about sacrifice!
Pitiable! We are left wondering
if after the acquittal, the spokesperson went to lunch and ate a sandwich, a
turkey salad or a hamburger!
The evening’s dominant theme was
the notion that American law is impartial, regardless of individual opinions or
preferences, including those of the lawyer defending the case, the judge, and
the members of the jury. Though in both
cases that were depicted—the second case dealt with the statutory rape of a
young boy by a repeated sex offender—the attorneys voiced their objection to
defend the accused, neither renounced the case. Eventually the lawyers presented admirable defenses because they
felt that there was a higher principle being judged that was not immediately
apparent. In reality, in both cases,
the lawyers’ attitude was offensive as they were forced to defend their
clients and did so grudgingly. In this
respect, the program was frustratingly fatalistic.
From the perspective of a
concerned viewer, especially as an important aspect of our religious practices
were on trial, these pessimistic endings—and more so in the rape case than in the
sacrifice case—produced a very unsavory aftertaste.
The message that the producers drove home was that though
hamburger-consuming American society considers animal sacrifice “repulsive,”
they have little choice but to accept it until we as a society advance beyond
our “barbaric,” animal-flesh consuming ways.
No matter how “repulsive” the notion of sacrifice is to some
Americans—and let us not forget to couple animal sacrifice with pedophilia!—it is not any
crueler than slaughtering animals for food, medical research, or sport. I ask: Was this a defense or an
apology? More importantly, we need to
question what long term repercussions a program of this nature can have on our
religion in a society as this one that allows us freedom on one hand and
attempts to curtail and censure it on the other with voiced disapproval of the
precise freedom it allegedly grants.
“Small Sacrifices,” in this respect, may be a much larger submission than
many of us consider.