Racism and Speciesism

"The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" (609)

Yes. Yes, they can suffer.

http://www.acersplace.com/page2.html

Yes, they can communicate - what does it matter whether we understand them or not? THey can talk to one another. Can they reason? I don't know a whole lot about this subject, but I'm sure they can. I feel like if I were to say that they can reason to some degree, then I'd fall into a speciesist trap... but I really am not certain. I DO think animals can reason - I just don't know how much in comparison to humans. Like I said, that sounds exactly like a speciesist saying, which isn't exactly what I'm going for.

The point is, animals can suffer. Just as humans have suffered at the hands of other humans, animals through the ages have suffered at the hands of humans. There's no question about it - animals feel pain, just as we do. The parallels drawn between white treatment of black slaves, and human treatment of animals is pretty frightening. Its scary that we are capable of such cruelty, and its terrifying that we haven't grown out of it. Its still occurring around the world in human relationships (acid attacks on women in Afghanistan provide just one example) - but very much so in the way we treat animals as commodities. The wider public has no idea of where their chickens come from, or their beef or pork. They don't know that these are mistreated creatures who live nonlives for our benefit.

"The parallels of experience are numerous. Both humans and animals share the ability to suffer from restricted freedome of movement, from the loss of social freedom, and to experience pain at the loss of a loved one." (619)

This reminded me of a story my father is fond of telling... and retelling... and telling again. (He's a professor and is very fond of telling us things.) When he was a young boy, maybe around age 12, he was given a hunting gun for his birthday. This was not out of the ordinary, and it was now his responsibility to help provide dinner for his family. He became very good at shooting pigeons to bring home for my grandmother to cook. He was pretty proud of his skills, and his family was pretty appreciative as well.

One day, however, he saw a pair of beautiful pigeons together, a male and female. He thought of how proud his mother would be if he brought these two birds home for the family, and aimed at the male, and fired. As usual, his aim was stellar. The next thing he knew, his heart was torn as the female let out a plaintive wail of grief - he had killed her mate, and she was devastated.

He had never realized the repercussions of his actions from the pigeon's point of view, but this day, he understood. This day, he felt a lover's pain of loss. This day, he hung up his hunting gun and never shot down pigeons again. He was through.



http://www.valentinewallpapers.in/wallpaper/Two-pigeons-in-love-forming-heart-symbol/

Of -isms

"Comparisons between women and domesticated animals are offensive, Baker (1975) concludes, because they 'reflect a conception of women as mindless servants' (56)...Without speciesism, domesticated animals would not be regarded as mindless; without speciesism, they would not be forced into servitude." (588)

This is SO true. Its truly disconcerting to note how many careless descriptions are thrown around in everyday language that bring speciesism and sexism together. Calling a man a bull or a lion is completely different from calling a woman a couger or a vixen... or a cow or a bitch.

http://www.examiner.com/single-men-in-colorado-springs/cougar-attack

Older women who form relationships with younger men are considered cougars - with all negative connotations - but men who date younger women are simply successful.

The ubiquity of these links in our language displays a discouraging fact: speciesism and sexism are rampant and linked together. I'm also taking Carol MacKay's Emerging Selves class for my TC; we've been studying women's autobiographies and gender relations this semester. This reading really reminded me of what we've been studying in her class.

In Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, Woolf discovers "without self-confidence we are babes in the cradle. And how can we generate this imponderable quality, which is yet so invaluable, most quickly? By thinking that other people are inferior to oneself...Women have served all these centuries as looking-glasses possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at twice its nautral size. Without that power probably the earth would still be swamp and jungle." (35)

Let's face it. OUr society is still significantly patriarchal. Even after years of effort, life is still unequal. As of now, I have yet to face the adverse effects of this, but I know that the workplace is an example in sexist practices. I know that once I become an architect, I will be trying to find my place in a male-dominated field. However, back to the subject at hand.

Sexism and speciesism all exist due to a need for power. Man needs to feel superior, and to make absolutely positively sure he IS at the top of the food chain, he degrades all those "beneath" him. This is a massive oversimplification and generalization to be sure, but it holds truth: a hunger for power and an feeling of insecurity lead people to mistreat those they percieve to be inferior.

" ...In any case, isn't Alice's incredulity rather incredible? She seems, at this moment at least, to believe that one can in fact discern and decide between a human "yes" and "no." She seems confident that when it comes to man it is possible to guess whether yes or no." (597)



http://abundancesecrets.com/motivational-posters/index.php?item=2988955

Alice and her kitten

We may not be able to completely understand each other - which is why we percieve others different from us to be below our intellect and undeserving of our respect. Isn't that what has led to conflict between nations? Isn't that what wars are based on? Isn't that why men and women always misunderstand each other? But just because we don't communicate through the same "language" doesn't mean we shouldn't try. It doesnt mean we shouldnt respect each other. It doesnt mean others are unworthy of dignity.



The Poets and the Animals

"Isn't that what is so suspect in the whole animal rights business: that it has to ride on the back of pensive gorillas and sexy jaguars and huggable pandas because the real objects of its concern, chickens and pigs, to say nothing of white rats or prawns, are not newsworthy?" (100)

 

vi.sualize.us

In the movie District 9, human capacity for prejudice was depicted in a fascinating way - what we do to aliens (called "Prawns" in the movie)?

Isn't this an issue with humanity in general? We seem to be predisposed to make judgements. I'm not going to pretend to be a scientist, because that's the last thing I am, but from the thought I've given to this subject. We place people who are different from us into various categories based on cultural differences, religious differences, racial differences... we even place people into categories based on how they dress (preps, jocks, emo-kids, skaters, hipsters, etc - the list goes on). As Professor BUmp mentioned in our discussion 2 weeks ago, babies will choose "mothers" with symmetrical faces.

We choose who's better than others, who we should aspire to be like, who we should socialize with, and who we must look down on. We speak of equality, but the idea of a true mixing pot, of a single race of humans is terrifying. Its terrifying to me, because we ought to celebrate our differences: it makes things interesting. It would be a boring world if we were all the same. But the same goes for animals. We choose which animals are lovable, and which are ugly. We choose what's creepy, and whats cuddly.

Isn't that extending our human judgement on animals? We are treating them like we treat ourselves in one sense of the word, but we place them into a category completely seperate from us. I honestly don't know how to feel about that. What is right?

"And in turn, I owe that calmness to the people on the ship. They are good people, in spite of everything." (560)

At the same time, I don't think the vast majority of people think that they are treating animals differently than they ought to be treated. For example, this really wasn't something I used to think about before this class. Most of my classmates don't wonder about animal rights or what they're eating or what their pets think. It feels like being awakened to a new world... even though I don't think about it all the time either.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/7212775/Pictures-of-the-day-11-February-2010.html?image=7

The caged panther prowls.

"But sometimes the curtains of his eyelids part,
the pupils of his eyes dilate..." (565)

Our eyes have been opened, but what do we see? I see confusion only still. Its hard to decide what to think when there's so much gray area, but I don't want to take the "easy" way out and decide not to decide anything. Actually maybe that's the harder path - to concede that you may not have an answer, and force yourself to sort through the issue all the time.

The Philosophers and the Animals

"The heart is the seat of a faculty, sympathy, that allows us to share at times the being of another. Sympathy has everything to do with the subject and little to do with the object, the "another"..." (79)

I think this quote is an apt summarization of where we must begin to deal with this subject. It is one that is confusing and controversial, and I don't think that there really is a right or wrong answer. That may be because I myself am still thinking through the issue.

However, I think humans tend to think selfishly - not necessarily out of a desire to do so, but because they have difficulty considering the "other" as equal to themselves. This probably explains so much of the conflict in the world throughout human history. We act emotionally, but not always thoughtfully. We ar so self absorbed in our own worlds we can't see that there are others around us with worlds of their own.

This is a human tendency. I don't think this is a blanket statement of human nature, because for the most part, we reach out and form connections with each other. However, Costello makes the case that we do not do this for animals, only for humans, becuase we are stuck seeing animals as below humans. This is probably true, but I wouldn't go so far as agreeing with her comparison of our treatment of animals to the Holocaust. Or to any other human tragedy for that matter. I do believe that we need to seriously reevaluate the way animals are treated, but I don't think that their deaths are comparable to human deaths.

"...the point is, normal humans have capacities that far exceed those of nonhman animals, and some of these capacities are morally significant in particular contexts... The value that is lost when something is emptied depends on what was there when it was full, and there is more to human existence than tehre is to bat existence." (512-4)

I agree with the above statement as a more balanced view than Costello's. Yes, animal rights have inherent value. But we are all tied together in a cycle of life. There is a certain degree of hierarchy, which I think GOd put in place for a reason. My religious views teach me to respect and treat animals with kindness, but to be practical - humans need to use animals, and should do so, but with dignity. Humans were given a responsibility to care for the planet - as the story goes, at the beginning of time, all beings assembled before God, (animals, plants, humans, the elements, etc.) and God asked who wanted to bear the responsibilty of having "reason." Humanity offered to take that burden, and GOd breathed the soul into humanity. This is obviously a paraphrased story, but my point is, there is definite difference between animals and humans. Both are valuable, but differently. Humans may not have been the best caretakers of the planet and its creations, but its done well in some cases as well.
 emilyrichardsonsblog.blogspot.com
What would happen if things were the other way around? Could we imagine ourselves as "ape?"
rj-whenlovecomestotown.blogspot.com

"When people say we should only feel - and at times Costello comes close to that in her lecture - I'm reminded of Goring, who said, 'I think with my blood.' See where it led him. We can't take our feelings as moral data, immune from rational criticism." (513).

There should be a balance between reason and emotion, and I think that is the answer in every case. To find the balance to every situation.

Ethics vs. Cruelty

"...By the time of the third plate, Tom Nero has progressed from the mistreatment of animals to theft and murder." (494)

http://www.graphicwitness.org/coe/cruel4.jpg

In Stage 4, Nero is being dissected for scientific purposes.


According to the readings, there is a correlation between animal abuse and people abuse. This makes sense. If you are able to be cruel to creatures that are not as powerful as you, it is a logical progression to direct that attitude towards fellow humans. In the stages of cruelty, Nero progresses from a child inflicting pain on a small animal, a dog, to a man beating the life out of a more powerful creature, a horse, to a lover murdering his love. FInally, he is punished in the manner by which he treated others: cruelly.

Constantly seeing animals in pain, or inflicting pain on them must deaden the empathetic part of human nature so that they cannot diffrentiate between animals and humans. THey must not be able to feel the suffering they are responsible for. At the same time, one cannot help but wonder what made the inflicter the way he/she is - are they simply responding to suffering they themselves have endured? Its a vicious cycle of torture.

"When the Abu Ghraib military prisoner torture and abuse scandal was published in March 2004, many observers immediately were struck by its similarities to the Stanford Prison experiment - among them, Philip
Zimbardo, who paid close attention to the story." (488)

http://www.prisonexp.org/

Guards and inmates at the Stanford Prison Experiment.

I have to be honest. Its very very difficult for me to feel any sort of sympathy towards the guards at Abu Ghraib. When this horrific scandal surfaced, it was at a time when Muslims were not well treated, well liked, or well understood in America, and I felt constantly on the defensive. We lived life laying low, and I hated it. I hated being nervous of speaking about my religion, or being hesitant to correct someone who'd make a bigoted statement. I hated being associated with terrorists and fundamentalists who are the Nazis of Islam. I knew it was never personal, but its very sad to see classmates and people you'd normally respect speak joyously of warfare against innocent people who share your religion, and glaze over human suffering that they knew nothing about. Its sad when you know that there are people rejoicing in death - and this happens in any war, which is why I hate war as well.

Anyway, I felt nothing but horror and rage and an utter disgust when I read about Abu Ghraib. It was just wrong. This couldn't exist in the world. But it did. It happened. I couldn't think of a single defense or justification for the guards to do what they did. MOst of the Abu Graib prisoners were innocent Iraqis anyway. Even if they weren't, there was no reason for them to undergo what they did. I cannot believe that such cruelty can be explained and defended. But this may be a bias on my part - I mean, obviously there are psychological explanations. Sometimes they're just hard to accept. At the same time, I believe in mercy and forgiveness and justice. SO basically, I'm a tornado of contradictions and confusion.

"But what really caught the attention of the researchers was the fact that when viewing the videos of intentionally inflicted pain, the aggressive-disorder teenagers displayed extremely heightened activity in the part of our brain known as the reward center, which is activated when we feel sensations of pleasure. They also displayed, unlike the control group, no activity at all in those neuronal regions involved in moral reasoning and self-regulation." (500)

Here is the psychological standpoint. Like Ookami, I feel like I'm now questioning humanity. Are we good, or are we bad? I still believe we're inherently good. I still feel that the vast majority of humans live life to the best of their abilities. But its hard to remember that when we are constantly reading about the darker, baser aspects of human nature, and its manifestations in real life. What we read about isn't theoretical only. We are reading about what is actually occurring in the world.

How do we deal with that?

Earthlings Part ii

"We know animals feel. They feel fear, loneliness, and pain, just like humans do. What animal would choose to spend their entire life in captivity... if they had a choice?" -Earthlings

I was somewhat more prepared to watch part 2 of Earthlings than I was to watch part 1. I could think about things in a more conscious and analytical manner, though this didn't lessen the impact of the documentary in any way.

What I liked about Earthlings is that it didn't concentrate solely on how we use animals for food. Instead, it focused on speciesism as a whole, and therefore addressed 5 different categories in which human use of animals can be placed: Pets, Food, Clothing, Entertainment, and Research.

We focused on the Research part in class just this week, when we learned about vivisections and the UT Animal Resources Center. This was a real lesson in suffering, and we made it analogous to human suffering through our discussion. Research is still something I'm having a hard time wrapping my thoughts around. I believe that science is inherently a good thing, and the pursuit of knowledge something we should encourage. However, unnecessary cruelty is absolutely NOT. Vivisections are SUCH a disgusting concept to think of (everytime I tell someone about it, their jaws just drop in disbelief and their eyes widen in horror - there is no variation to this initial gut response) and is such an intense degree of cruelty, that it astonishes me that it is still a legal practice. Our methods of scientific inquiry must be something we carefully think about: morality and justice, I believe, must always rule first.

The Entertainment part was absolutely horrifying to watch, because its something I've never really thought about. Do we realize that the circus animals we see have confined lives of captivity and abject cruelty? Do we know that the creatures we think are so talented are actually beaten and terrified into submission?

No, we really don't.

I have to be honest. I don't think that it is evil to eat animals, or to use them to our purpose. But I do believe that this must be done in a respectful manner. We must preserve the dignity of our fellow living Earthlings, and appreciate them for all that they offer us. Animals eat other animals: the food chain DOES exist for a reason. But there is no evil and cruelty in the animal kingdom. THey do what they must to survive, nothing more, and nothing less. We humans, on the other hand, have become wasteful. We are greedy and powerhungry and exert our superiority over everything "beneath" us. We have lost our balance.

Personally, I have not eaten meat in the last three weeks, except for twice. I don't think I am permanently a vegetarian, but I can only bring myself to eat meat that I know has been prepared in ethical manners. For example, Muslims have a method of slaughtering animals that is called halal or zabiha. THis basically means that the animals was properly raised (in a caring manner, never abused) and then killed in the name of God (so they are prayed for and appreciated) in the swiftest, most painless way possible. I know that kosher is very similar, and that's why it was extraordinarily shocking when Earthlings showed the kosher slaughter house that violated everysingle kosher law and sold this "illegal" meat to unsuspecting Jews. This was clearly the worst case scenario, but still, it makes me wary. LUckily, I know that the place my family buys meat from has an open farm policy, and family friends have visited and verified that it is an ethical place from which to buy meat.

Still, I have trouble eating it because I cannot shake those images off. They are less clear now, a few weeks later, but the feelings cannot disappear.

The thing is, what truly shook me about Earthlings is not specifically the animal part (although obviously it is huge and has had a severe impact on me).

No, what truly riled me and shoved me into a new way of seeing the world was the realization of how much utter cruelty exists in human nature and the world. I've always been an optimist and a dreamer - I see the positive side to every situation and believe that good triumphs over evil and heroism exists and the human heart will always win. I have not lost that attitude, but I have become more grounded. I know that there is true unadulterated evil in the world, and it is frighteningly easy for humans to give in to that dark side. If this had been a documentary on warfare, on the situation between Palestine and Israel, or on the Bosnian war, or on Darfur, or Afghanistan or Iraq or Tibet or any source of human conflict in the world... I would react similarly, I think. I would be encased in a sense of shock that such cruelty is possible, and such numbing to empathy and love is possible.

However, I still believe that good will triumph. Love is always the most powerful factor. I truly believe that.

http://allwomenstalk.com/7-reasons-to-become-vegetarian/

Earthlings Part i

"If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that one's suffering can be counted equally with the like suffering of any other being." -Earthlings

veganunderground.com

No wonder no one wants to see it. But it must be done.

The day I watched Earthlings was the most bizarre day ever. It was a day full of contradictions, and it just left me feeling befuddled, horrified, and, well, sort of like a train wreck inside.

That day, I was operating on only 30 minutes of sleep, which I'd somehow snatched by falling asleep in studio sometime around 5 in the morning. This is crazy, I know, but I really have a strange way of life right now - and most of it revolves around working. I had worked on an architecture project and studied for a quiz all evening and early morning, and went into class relying on a Starbucks' energy boost, and my own natural capacity to strive happily through the day. Besides, the weather was absolutely stunning, which always puts me in an excellent mood.

Well. That wouldn't last long. Earthlings came along to jar me out of my dream world into a world of real and horrifying cruelty and evil. Honestly, I don't think my reaction to Part 1 of this documentary was a balanced one. It took me a long while to sort through my feelings and intellectually analyze my thoughts: at that point, I was simply responding with gut feeling... and I wasn't even quite certain what my feelings were.

I'd just like to say right now that I. Hate. Blood.
With a passion. It makes me nauseous. When we once had to watch a Red Cross video for Girl Scouts, I kept my eyes covered for the vast majority of the film. When I watch movies like Lord of the RIngs and The Kingdom of Heaven (some of my all time favorites) I have to remind myself that everything is fake... or I just avert my eyes. Its kind of contradictory - action movies are my favorites, but I can't stand too much gore. In Fahrenheit 911, I simply shut my eyes tight as the war scenes were shown.

Earthlings shattered right through my pretense. I couldn't pretend that things were fake. They absolutely weren't. Just like in Fahrenheit 911, I was watching real and immense suffering and pain. And there was no way I could mentally protect myself. But the point is, I couldn't think of myself at all. I wasn't supposed to do that - I was supposed to feel this pain. I was supposed to empathize. And empathize I did. My face kept rapidly shifting between expressions of disgust and winces of pain - this documentary really never gave you a break. It just kept hitting you with scenes of cruelty, over and over, and it never let up.

That's a lot to handle. Especially when you're already kind of delirious. I didn't cry, but I was pervaded with a sense of horror, a sort of tornado of violent emotions that I didn't even understand. HOnestly, I had no idea how to react. I only knew I had no idea what to say. What could be said? What kind of expression would I wear as soon as class ended? I was baffled. Images were racing through my mind, images I didn't want to think about, but forced myself to see and replay. When I got out into the beautiful sunny air... I had no idea what to do. I wanted to be happy... but I couldn't. I wanted to be like the smiling, cheerful, laughing students joking and walking to class... but I couldn't. Something inside of me had changed irrevocably, and the world was still the same outside. WHat happened in that room, with this group of people who had all experienced this film wasn't reflected outside. Why not? How could things be so different? I just felt a huge disconnect between myself and the world at that point.

 Numbly, I walked to my next class, and wondered how on earth I would manage to take this quiz I'd studied all early morning for.

When I went to class, I had to put on another face. I had to talk and smile with my friends, discuss the quiz anxiously, do some last minute studying together. But as soon as people's attention was off of me, I lowered my eyes and just felt a heaviness fall over me. Let's not discuss how the quiz went (I actually got an A on it, but it felt like a disaster at the time).

When I turned the quiz in, my TA came to talk to me. He must have noticed something wrong, becuase he asked in a somewhat concerned manner how I was doing - I gave him a slight smile (not at all what he's used to seeing, since I tend to smile hugely all the time), and answered something along the lines of "ehhaaheuu," which isn't really an answer at all. He gave me a sort of pep talk about the quiz, which I appreciated, although his assumption of my concerns were only half right, and I walked back to studio, preparing myself for another day of work.

All this time, it was just images. Images of animals with huge eyes full of pain. Images of scars, of torn flesh and injuries and deformities. Of blood spilling like rivers all over concrete floors. Of dark cramped cages. Of humans screaming at and beating and cursing innocent creatures. All of this played like a film through my head. Now that I write this, two weeks later, its coming back again. This sense of heaviness is back, and I remember how it weighed me down as I walked slowly to studio. When I got there, however, I ran into one of my best friends, who just looked at me - and I knew I couldn't do any work. We sat down, and I let it out. I tried talking about what I'd seen, what I was feeling... but I couldn't really put it into cohesive words. He just listened and understood.

But the images still stayed.

Suffering

These essays on vivisection were both incredibly fascinating reads. To be quite honest, I wasn't certain of the definition of vivisection at first, but once I analyzed the word itself, I knew it meant "live dissection." The essays clearly proved this correct, but the word does not do the action justice. "Vivisection" or "live dissection" sounds very clinical and cold - very scientific and distant. But truly, it doesn't capture the horror and pain of dissecting a creature while it is living and alert to pain. It is one thing to think of surgery - surgery saves lives, improves you in some way, and most often involves pain killers and anesthesia. Vivisection does not, for chemicals tend to get in the way of these experiments.

It is simply a surgical method used on living creatures to extract information for human use.

What made both Lewis Carroll's and Robert R. Titus' essays so convincing and effective was the way in which they each presented their arguments. Both were intellectual and reasonable, combating science with more of the same. If they relied on pathos, I don't think their arguments would have held up as well, simply because we tend to give more credit to facts over opinions and feelings.

commons.wikimedia.org

a portrait of the author, Lewis Carroll

Carroll's argument against vivisection was incredibly effective for several reasons. Firstly, the way he laid it out is easy to follow - the reader sees the myth, the premise of his argument, then the reasoning behind it as he systematically attacks the idea that vivisection is not considered animal cruelty. THis method of breaking down the issue is logical and clear and therefore, more likely to convert others to his point of view.

In addition, he wrote with a very balanced opinion that many people can relate to. Carroll argues that yes, death is sometimes necessary, but unnecessary pain and cruelty is abhorrent. This is not an unpalatable standpoint for the majority - in fact it's quite reasonable. In addition, he writes of vivisection's effects on the vivisectionist, therefore transferring attention away from the animals and onto the humans. In all honesty, humans will identify with suffering by other humans more than with animals - simply because they are human themselves. "The hapless animal suffers, dies, '""and there an end:""' but the man whose sympathies have been deadened, and whose selfishness has been fostered, by the contemplation of pain deliberately inflicted, may be the parent of others equally brutalised, and so, bequeathe a curse to future ages." (466) As soon as people begin to think of their futures, their children, their progeny in danger, they begin to take action.

However, the downside is that Carroll also creates an oversimplified generalization at times. In his letter to the editor, he writes "Selfishness is the key-note of all purely secular education; and I take vivisection to be a glaring, a whilly unmistakable case in point." (461). There is no evidence that secular education leads to selfishness, epitomized in vivisection. True, a lack of sense of empathy is a huge problem in the case of vivisection, but that did not stem solely from a secular education.

Titus' paper was particularly powerful for me because he wrote from experience. His method of writing clear, unfussy, unaffected prose was jarring - it reflected the shields he had to put up in order to deal with the pain he inflicted so many times on so many birds in the name of science. In fact, he was beginning to have his "sympathies deadened" as Carroll quoted (466) - and this is seen through the distance and cold, factual way he wrote about his actions.

"I placed their heads in the diamond shaped aperture of the guillotine. THe subjects did not receive sedation or anesthetic as those chemicals would conflict with the aims of the experiment...The headless bleeding body convulsed violently at the base of the guillotine as I shifted my focus  to the head...critical to data collection." (478).

TItus shows that data collection is the sole endeavor and focus of vivisection. He comes to the conclusion that "while [he respects] the aims of the experiment, [he is] revolted by the means. Certainly, improving the daily life of humans across the planet is a worthy endeavor; nevertheless, the draconian procedure of vivsection is too great a cost." (480). He addresses the fact that data collection in itself and scientific exploration is not at all a bad thing or an evil - the evil comes in when cruelty and needless suffering is involved. When humans use their power to stomp on the rights of others, just because they can, it is cruel and selfish. Both TItus and Caroll address human selfishness in their essays: Titus in his content, and Caroll by taking advantage of human selfishness to bring readers around to his argument. Both, though not flawless, are incredibly powerful papers.

commons.wikimedia.org

I thought this was a cool image of antivisectionists all over the world.

Alice in Wonderland

abundancesecrets.com

David Daniel makes some good points about the significance of animals in Lewis Carroll's classic Alice in Wonderland. In his essay, he claims that "the significance of this consistant usage of our furry animal friends is often overlooked by those more interested in what the characters say than  who the characters are."  (443) One of the strong points in his essay revolves in how Alice percieves herself in relation to the animals sometimes colors how she treats them. For example, when she is huge and has nothing to fear, she is carelessly cruel, kicking a lizard up a chimney and swatting at a mother pigeon. Also, when playing croquet with the Queen, she is in a position of power in comparison to the flamingoes and hedgehogs used for sport. When in this elevated position of power, Alice represents human tendency to treat those below them thoughtlessly. However, Daniel's essay does not contain foolproof logic.



mtv.co.uk



Not all of his claims are well backed. In his second paragraph, he argues that "the suggestion is not that the rabbit is aberrant but that Alice herself has never looked at rabbits correctly before. Also, it is only because it is an animal that Alice pays attention. It is entirely probable that had a strange little man rushed by, whining about being late, Alice would have simply sat bored by the brook and perhaps made a few daisy chains." (443-3) This seems an oversimplification of Alice and the animal world in Carroll's book. The rabbit is not aberrant because it is in a dream - nothing in a dream is out of the ordinary, because in dreams, anythign is possible. Also, it is because Alice knows what rabbits are like in her world that this particular one with human traits captures her attention. Besides, who's to say that a strange little man is not out of the ordinary? A hobbit would be likely to catch Alice's attention as well.

Professor Bump's essay, unlike Daniel's, contains a degree of shock value. THough this works in evoking an emotional response, it also allows for logical fallacies - focusing on extreme cases doesn't give a realistic view of a situation because the vast range of reality is lost. The gruesome stories from the The Vegetarian Messenger oversimplifies the effect of butchering on children. There is also an appreciation of life and death that can be learned by being in such close proximity to death - this is not an argument for or against eating animals, but a simple fact of what is experienced when taking an animal's life for sustenance. In addition, the horrible conditions described in "The Best Food for Man," are from a terrible situation, but there are family farms and places that are very different. The main argument that I believe cannot be backed is the defense of the statement "Ryder compared speciesism to racism and since then the comparison has been extended to sexism..." (447). Racism and sexism occur within one species. THe human species. Although Bump argues that animals are part of the human family, they are not actually within our species. Therefore, the term Speciesism is not exactly comparable to racism and sexism. The same is true of his comparison of the human practice of eating meat to cannibalism. Animals themselves eat other animals - but this is not considered unethical or wrong.

Sympathetic Imagination

"He underestimated me.
He expected the least of me.
He wrote me off, sold me off and out
But still I love him." (413)

I have to be perfectly honest. I am not an animal person. I am scared of them. I always wanted a dog, because when I read about them in stories or saw them in movies, they looked so cute and adorable. Which they are of course. But as a child, I lived across the street from a family who owned two massive dogs. One day, while I was riding my bike, one of those creatures just started running towards me. Terrified, I dropped my bike, struggled to untangle myself, and raced into my house, slamming the door shut.

I am not an animal person. I'm not sure how to explain it - its been a fear I've always had. I'm fairly over it by now - my piano teacher as well as many friends own dogs and other pets so I am perfectly fine around them, but I'm not exactly at ease. I cannot welcome a puppy with open arms, and slobber disgusts me. I do wish I was different, but I can't help it. I love watching 101 Dalmations, and just about every animal movie... but I can't imagine myself in that role.

I love this movie!

puregoldenlaughter.blogspot.com

For this reason, I'm very curious to see how this next project will go. I'm open to learning, and hope that with our Sympathetic Imagination unit, I'll be able to become much more comfortable around animals. I recognize that there is a special connection between humans and animals, a bond of love, and it seems many times that it can be one-sided. Animals can be relied on to love a human more often then the other way around.



"A word of caution: be very careful and do not trust the humans." (web: Ashley Martinez, "They Call Me Scat)

blog.newsok.com

The sad thing is that the above quote is so very true. Humans cannot be relied upon. Many of us are kind and have beautiful hearts. Many of us don't - too many. The vast range of us fall somewhere in between, and I truly believe that most humans are good-hearted. Unfortunately, it is because of the others that organizations like the Humane Society must exist.

Of course, because they exist, there is proof that good exists.

I live in Blanton, NOT the museum.

Last Tuesday, our World Lit class met at the Blanton Museum, the largest museum on a college campus.

Our mission? To find a painting with an animal, 5 extra points given for specific animals. After glancing over the list, I knew exactly what I wanted.

I was on a Quest for the Dragon. Wandering through the Renaissance and Early European paintings, I found none with a fire-breathing mythical beast. Undeterred, I continued my search into the Modern Art section. I'd been in these rooms before, but they never cease to intrigue me; some are so utterly questionable, others just amazing, and some I will never pretend to understand. I passed some awesome pieces, but none with dragons. In fact, modern art didn't deal much with animals at all... I was beginning to miss the oil paintings from earlier... but not really. I love the mixed media pieces in Modern art. I like the idea of taking things like ashes and charcoal and making a work of art with it.

Finally, something animalistic caught my eye. A giant metal hoop with an unraveling wire grid on one side and an explosion of glossy black feathers on the other was sticking out of the wall, just like that. Intrigued, I edged closer, circling the piece in fascination. It just seemed so bold and... adamant. But it was definitely not a dragon.

It was at this point that I ran into Spider.

"You're just not going to do the assignment, huh?" She asked with a smile. "Just doing your own thing, looking at art?"

"Nope, this IS the assignment!" I laughed in response. "I'm searching for the Dragon!"

"Excuse me," the curator, a young and friendly blonde man, came to ask, "but did you say you're looking for a dragon?"

Hallelujah! I thought. I was finally about to get some help! But no. Apparently there were no dragons currently on exhibit, as far as he knew. I wasn't about to waste time on an impossible search for a nonexistent object when I had a perfectly wonderful candidate in front of me.

I was looking at Single Bound (2000) by Terry Adkins, artist and musician. I sat right down, gazed up at the piece, and started writing.

The metal came from scraps of Fineseilver uniform manufacturing warehouse in San Antonio, and the feathers are rooster feathers acquired from a feather company. Adkins created the piece to tell the story of working people and blues troubadours who have been unjustly treated throughout history. Within the hoop, there is a huge section to the right of a nearly perfect grid, and a line of unraveling wire. The grid is barely attached to the metal hoops, and to the left of the seam, the wiring is seriously coming apart. The left side is composed of an explosion of glossy, lustrous black rooster feathers. This riot has some sort of order with 3 or 4 distinct columns and feathers going in somewhat the same direction, but against the wire, it's wild and beautiful.

Art takes on a new meaning with every viewer's interpretation of it. In this piece, I see a symbol of humanity's attempt to assert order and control over nature and God's way of things. In the juxtaposition of order and disorder, of ugliness and beauty, of mass and void, the extremes of these concepts are highlighted. Like the feathers bursting free of every dimension, the wild side of the human heart and passion cannot be constrained by rational, intellectual reasoning. We have much to learn from nature and from animals.

Of course, while taking notes, it was only inevitable that I'd drift off and start drawing instead...

That was when I heard the tour guide telling the UGS class beside me, "*mumbling*constellation*mumbling*dragon*mumbling*." I only caught the part about dragons and constellations and the fact that she was talking about the art RIGHT BESIDE ME!

Could this be true? Could I have been sitting beside my dragon the entire time and not have even known it?

Yes, indeed it could. Thank you Fate. I verified it with a different museum curator, and gleefully skipped back to take some notes of Sternenfall [Falling Stars] (1998) by Anselm Kiefer of Germany.

This installation is GIGANTIC. It was almost floor to ceiling, and the dragon is actually a constellation of Draco. The triangle at the bottom right is his head, and the long serpentine line is the curve of his back. Kiefer created this as a response to World War II, and it represents the chaos and evil of that time period with its rugged and overwhelming quality. The strings of numbers on slips of paper that make up some of the stars and constellations and slips that litter the bottom of the piece (because they have literally fallen off the canvas) could represent the victims of the Holocaust. THey and the other casualties of the war are beings that have simply fallen off the planet. The entire piece is intense and overwhelming, much like German history as well as human suffering in general.

But there ya go. Art is emotion.

Carnism

"Psychic numbing is a psychological process by which we disconnect, mentally and emotionally, from our experience...[it] is not evil; it is a normal, inevitable part of daily life, enabling us to function in a violent and unpredictable world..." (365)

Have we forgotten the suffering in Darfur?

faculty.fairfield.edu

It is extraordinarily difficult to handle evil. Evil exists in the world, but humans tend to be delicate, our mental and emotional capacities vulnerable to pain. What is our problem?

Empathy. We feel too much. We can't handle thinking of the innocent people in Darfur dying daily in horrid concentration camps. We can't think about child soldiers in Uganda, abducted in the middle of the night, forced to commit and see brutal acts, then sent forth to kill, maim, and abduct other children. We can't think about the bloodshed sporadically erupting in Palestine and Israel. We can't think about the victims of flooding in Pakistan who are still struggling to put their lives together as the initial wave of donations falls away.

There are so many tragedies around the world, wars and natural disasters and human conflict. If we were to fully open ourselves and be vulnerable to feeling all the pain that exists in the world, I honestly don't think we could handle it. So we shut that part of us down. We instead reduce everyone to numbers and statistics, forget about issues after a week or two, and go back to our normal lives.

If we take a look at our daily lives, we'll see the practice is the same. We eat meat. We eat animals.

What is in this cow's future?

smh.com.au

"People may dislike broccoli, but nobody is ever disgusted by the thought of eating it. Could it be that the disgust is in fact a displacement? I am thinking of an early disgust (which many children share) at the very thought of ingesting a corpse that was once a living being." (394)

Last Saturday, October 23, I watched Food, Inc. It was thoroughly enlightening, and thoroughly disgusting. I couldn't look at meat the same way, and refused to eat it. I wasn't thinking of the future, I wasn't taking on the label of a vegetarian, I was just responding instinctively to a feeling of disgust when I thought of the meat industry. As well as the corn industry and practically every other major food processing industry. Then, that Thursday, we watched the beginning of Earthlings. Did I ever say that I hate blood? Well, I do. It makes me nauseous. I could barely watch Earthlings, but I made myself when I could.

That reinforced my new aversion to meat. I don't know if this is permanent. I don't know how long it will last. I happen to believe that the Food Chain exists for a reason - there would be overpopulation of every species if there wasn't a natural order in place to keep the planet in equilibrium. Animals eat other animals. We are animals too, and have our place in that order. However, there is no reason for cruelty to be part of that order. I have not eaten meat for over a week, and I have no idea where this is going to go - as for now, I can't help but see visions of Earthlings - not necessarily a face, but images of evil, on my plate.