Talk:The Dog in the Manger

Winston Churchill Example
I think the Winston Churchill example is inappropriate.

"...Winston Churchill [compares] Palestinians in 1937 to the dog in the manger after reading the Peel Commission which suggested partitioning British mandated Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. Churchill said of the Palestinians in 1937, "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.""

Of course people should never complain when what is rightfully theirs is being taken over by a "stronger, higher-grade, wiser race." Who is the dog? Who are the oxen? Yes, he agrees that the dog in the manger has the final right; for the "mangers" rightfully belonged to the Red Indians, the "black people," and the Palestinians, and it is dogs who have come in and insist they sleep in them. Effectively, any people who colonialists wish to displace will be seen as "dogs in a manger." What a self-serving, ironic usage of this moral. What a racist white supremacist Churchill was.123.223.24.107 (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You may disagree with Churchill's stance and his interpretation of the situation. Personally, I'd say you were right to.  But it remains a good demonstration of how someone has famously used the 'Dog in the Manger' parable to make a point in conversation/debate.  Since that is its purpose in the article, it probably should remain. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 12:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the quotation on account of its length. It may or may not be of interest that Churchill - and half the people in the western hemisphere - have used the metaphor at one time or another but I suspect that the real motive for using the whole of the quotation was to smuggle in racist opinions. From this point of view, it is off-topic. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should put it back Polishedrelish (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The fable doesn't entirely support the moral
Probably original research, but thought it was worth a mention. The moral is "People often begrudge others what they cannot enjoy themselves." but the dog in the story clearly is enjoying the manger - as a sleeping place if not as a food source. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 13:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * However, a number of other locations presumably would have been just as convenient as sleeping-places for the dog, while the manger was the only place where the other animals could find food... AnonMoos (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting
The earlier article was poorly researched and inaccurate in places. The 'moral' that is quoted (and discussed above) appears in none of the earlier sources and hardly does justice to modern readings of the fable in any case. But the revision incorporates all the relevant material from the former article. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Muppet Version
On TV years ago, A Muppet version of the story appeared: The dog takes possession of a bale of hay in a barn..but starves because the foolish hound cannot eat the hay it greedly holds on to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.156.249 (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)