Animals Representing Places Where They Don't Exist

I’ve never heard of a lion living in the wild in the United Kingdom. (The British Empire is long gone.)  I’ve never seen one in Paraguay either. Yet you see these tough animals as representative of the countries on their coats of arms or flags. This makes no sense and needs to be stopped. If you have a logo to represent your country or region, it should only be allowed to show animals that are from there. The bald eagle for the USA is a fine example, and India has a right to use lions because lions actually live there, (although, sadly, not many are left). Sure, many countries might only be left with deer or rabbits, but foxes are pretty ferocious little animals. Rattlesnakes are deadly too. Michigan uses the wolverine quite effectively, (although I’m not sure those haven’t gone extinct in that state). To use an animal from another area as a symbol is like saying Miami makes the best New York style pizza.

In a similar way, team names sometimes have nothing to do with the places they represent. From the NBA, Los Angeles doesn’t have any lakes and Utah isn’t the home of jazz. I know the teams were moved from other places, but that’s no excuse. Back to animals, perhaps some countries are just jealous of other countries having what humans perceive as mean, dangerous animals. But nobody said they had to use animals on their flags. If they want to show their toughness or military might, they could just use a picture of a mean human soldier with ethnic features of their people. Besides, dangerous animals living in your home country makes living there less safe. That’s not really something to be proud of, (unless you’ve survived an attack).

+ Atul