Saya tertarik dengan sebuah artikel yang membincangkan tentang sebuah interpretasi terhadap sesebuah memilih pemimpin yang bijaksana yang di tonjolkan dalam karakter haiwan. Sama- sama kita ikutinya.
Since I was little kid, I have been taught that lions are kings of the jungles. I always wondered why a cruel animal like lion is called king rather being called terrorist of the jungle. And, why the strongest and noble animal like elephant is not called the king.
A king is supposed to care of his people, not to eat them. And lions do nothing but eating them. Usually no one cares of other animals in a animals environment, but in some environments, elephants do protect other smaller animals from animals like lions, tigers etc. It’s other thing that elephants just try to keep their group safe. But indirectly the protect all other smaller animals in the region. And of course, elephants do not harm other peaceful animals. While, lions always act as terrorists/mafias, who are always looking into killing of the few animals. :)
In view of power and strength, elephants have no challenge from any other animal on the land; and a king is supposed to be most powerful. And elephants are most powerful; and not a single lion dares to have any trouble with an elephant. If some one dares, which is very rare, gets himself beyond the life.
The point is, why do we tell our kids that animals who kill others are the supreme animal of the jungle and they are kings. These little things may have very very little impact on the kids, but any bad impact may affect the kids. A kid may get the idea that cruel and murderers are the supreme; mafias are so cool and king like etc etc. :)
Also, character of elephants may be having good effects. Strong but still noble and peaceful; sometimes, protective too. :)
Some people say, it natural that lions are in that way and they cannot help it. But the concept of lion king isn’t nature made, it is human made, so may be we can change it from Lion King to Elephant King. :D
