When I first saw the links to "find your totem animal" I was really excited. I clicked on the first link and read through the questions, but they all seemed too vague for me to answer. I am intrigued by almost all animals, so it was hard for me to answer questions like "what animal are you most interested in seeing?" or "what animal are you drawn to?" For me, the simple, obvious answer would be cats, but I feel like I love cats the most only because I have been around them since a really early age. So, I decided to do a little more work to find my totem animal. I took the 19-question quiz, and it really was a joke. There were only four outcomes, and none of them fit me.
I went back to the first link, and saw the question "which animal is most frightening to you?" As a child, I was terrified of fish (and I still don't like to be near them). I also could never eat any kind of sea food, even though I wasn't a vegetarian. Perhaps there is some link between me and fish that I have never discovered before. According to this website, fish represent knowledge, transformation, good luck, creativity, feminitity, eternity, and fertility. I would consider knowledge, transformation, and good luck pretty accurate, but not the rest. I also decided to try cats again... maybe I shouldn't overlook the cat as possibility as my totem animal. The website says that cats are Astute, Clever, Secretive, Mysterious, Intelligent, Intuitive, Supernatural, Watchful, Selective, and Independent. All of these traits strongly describe me (except for supernatural). So according to this website, the cat would be my totem animal..
But I feel like there are a lot of other qualities that describe me as well. For instance, the gecko would describe someone who is good at "blending in," having a clear perspective, and being a good counselor. I think these traits describe me equally as well as the cat. According to this website, the gopher "shows us how to flow through life in a balanced way by always staying connected to the rhythm of earths heartbeat." Some other animals that I feel describe me very well: Chipmunk: Do what they want in their own time frame, will not be told what to do, curious, exploring Opposom: knows how to mold situations to needs, reading between the lines, playing different roles Cougar: independent, shy, territorial, leadership Owl:represents private, complex people and don't like others to know what they are really thinking. This can sometimes lead to misunderstandings especially in the area of personal relationships.
I still haven't found a totem animal, but maybe I just need time to think about it. I think one of the most important reasons people want to find a totem animal is so that they can better understand themself, including their weaknesses. Searching for a "totem animal," whether or not I find one, makes me think about these characteristics, and makes me reevaluate the traits that I have that I like and don't like. For instance, I don't really like the "owl" in me: not letting others know what I'm truly thinking. On the other hand, I really like the "gecko" in me, learning from experiences and keeping a clear perspective, and the ability to help others.
On a final note, one of the websites described different types of animal totems. The totems I described above are lifelong totems. The "journey" totem animal would be very easy for me to pick. For the past few years, I have noticed a new affinity for squirrels. Perhaps this is a a reminder that I need to work hard and stay busy for the next few years, and not be lazy at this time in my life.
Fuzz, Tag and Marbles were three kittens we took home on my sister’s 4th birthday. We had intended to adopt just one feline, but unable to resist the seduction of fresh cats, we gave in to our temptations and took home half of the litter. Although initially upset that my mom had made such an impulsive decision, my dad quickly became very fond of the kittens. They were adorable, bouncy, and unsurprisingly cute, but quickly turned into very fertile cats. As young children, my brother, sister, and I loved having a new batch of kittens every few months. It was like Christmas over and over. Eventually, Fuzz, Tag and Marbles kittens’ were having kittens. As an avid cat lover, I named every kitten and knew their connection to the three primary cats (Tag had a great-great niece named Oliver). After a few years of this, and as my brain developed, I realized that what was going on was unacceptable. I knew by then that pet overpopulation was a huge problem; my three cats alone had produced over 30 kittens. My family finally got the situation under control, and we are no longer a cat factory (which is surprisingly easy to achieve, the main idea of the cartoon drawing below). Ironically, I believe that one of the reasons I am so involved with animal rights is that I know first hand how easy it is to become distant from serious issues- even for an animal lover like me.
Students against Cruelty to Animals is the UT student organization with the aim to defend the rights of animals through public education, research, special events, direct action and grassroots organizing. Some of the issues we work on include animals used in entertainment and clothing, animal testing, animal agriculture/meat production, and the pet overpopulation (a video from the Spay Austin Coalition is below. We help this group on Saturdays to protest Petland's support of puppy mills). My personal aim is to contribute to animal welfare in any way I can. My aim for others is simply to educate. Richard Louv is an author who wrote a book about “Nature Deficiency Disorder.” I hate the idea of “disorders,” because it seems like people are trying to come up with a diagnosis for everything. But Louv’s underlying idea has a striking truth: people naturally seek interaction with the environment and animals. Without this interaction, they suffer. This is why I believe that people inherently care about animals at some basic level- the fact that people turn away from videos of animal slaughter, or feel joy from keeping pets, verifies this. For this reason, I believe that education is the easiest and most beneficial way to further the animal rights movement. The concern for animals already exists, all that is needed is the knowledge that certain issues concerning animals exist, and that there is a way to alleviate them.
Sometimes I feel like such a hypocrite when I stand at the SACA table and tell people to spay and neuter. After all, I have probably contributed more to this problem than anyone I have ever talked to. However, I acknowledge that it was wrong, and I pushed my family to fix it. Even as a young 8th grader, it was very easy to persuade my parents to take action to stop our cat farm. We all loved animals, we just needed to realize that by not taking responsibility for our animals’ reproduction, we were contributing to the huge problem of pet overpopulation. The changes I have been able to make in my life (and the ways I see others change their lives in reaction to problems they encounter) inspire me to educate others. For many, changing behavior to match moral standards is easy only with the will to do it. Without will, people often sidestep the issue. For instance, some common reactions to the vegetarian argument include statements like, “I like meat too much,” or jokes such as “Well do you eat animal crackers?” When I encounter these kinds of statements, I simply try to show the person that the issue is more serious than they realize. Directing them to literature, films, facts, or stories about animal related issues, I attempt to turn whichever issue I’m talking about into something real, something less likely to be pushed aside.
The members of SACA try not to be discouraged when people overwhelmingly ridicule or bash our efforts.Often, the problem is us and not them. When we protest at places such as the circus or the rodeo, our aim is to inform the people that are directly supporting these events. However, what we are essentially doing is “catching in the action,” which sometimes leads people to feel guilty, ashamed, or alienated. This is not the purpose of protests, which is why we have begun to rally in places that won’t make people feel negative so about themselves, such as the West Mall during the passing period, and random streets in Austin. Likewise, we do not tell people about the horrors of meat as they eat a hamburger, or throw red paint on people wearing fur (as PETA is known to do). If someone had come into my house when I was younger and yelled at me for being a horrible caretaker of my pets, I would have been embarrassed, and probably would have never wanted to talk to that person again, much less listen to them. For this reason, I believe that the best way to advocate change is to inform rather than accuse.
In a perfect world, I would love to see humans and nature coexist perfectly. But with the huge overpopulation of humans, I realize that this goal is not probably. Rather, I strive for a more ideal world, where animals are treated with enough respect to write their welfare into law. With enough outreach and education, people eventually decide to take a stance on an issue. This is another of my goals- to get people to recognize an issue as serious enough to take a stance- whether they agree with me or not. Without knowledge, the problem is free to exist indefinitely. As Sewell wrote, ignorance “is the worst thing in the world, next to wickedness.” This is because ignorance is such an easy way to excuse wrong doing.
As I stated before, people have a natural tendency to care about animals. The two major ways people take a stance on an issue is politically and economically. After enough outreach, which usually takes several months to several years for a specific topic, the issue will reach politics. In 2004, California decided to outlaw the production of Foie Gras. In 2008, California’s Proposition 2, The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty, passed by 63%. Economically, people voice what they want through their wallets- if they refuse to support things they believe are wrong, such as rodeos, meat production, or fur coats, the prevalence of those things naturally decline.
Of course, not all issues are successful. The University of Texas has continually denied our requests to switch the cafeterias to cage free eggs, and to stop supporting the Barnum and Bailey Circus. When we encounter walls like this, the next step is to create petitions that students sign showing their support for the change. With enough signatures, the request can be resubmitted, and hopefully a meeting is set up with one of the advocates of the issue, where we discuss the problem and attempt to persuade the person in charge to take a stance. Although SACA has not yet had a major success, we have had some smaller successes. For instance, SACA has gotten the ARC to release one beagle who was destined to be killed from the testing center. The picture to the right shows a lemur who was housed at the ARC. Furthermore, we have pushed UT to include more vegetarian options, and they now label all foods as vegan or vegetarian.
By far, I have found that the most effective way to be a successful leader is to be a good role model; to be a compassionate leader is the easiest way to initiate change. If people see me as some crazy animal activist, they probably won’t take me seriously. Likewise, if I am arrogant and scorn those who I believe are doing wrong, I not only give myself a bad name, but everything I stand for. With patience and civilized education, I have successfully led at least a dozen people to try vegetarianism, or at least reduce their meat intake. When I encounter people who are willing to listen to me, I have learned that this is a gift and I should take it seriously. By being patient, understanding, and flexible to the beliefs of others, I have learned that many people aren’t so stubborn, they simply don’t want to be told what to do. When people tell me things like, “I like meat too much,” I remind them that simply reducing the amount of meat intake, or even choosing meat that comes from animals who were raised and slaughtered under better conditions does far more to benefit the situation than nothing at all. It is important to remind people that no case is all or nothing, there is always an easy way to help a problem if the will exist to do so.
Most of all, I have learned that the best leadership plans don’t enforce change. We cannot force anyone into doing something they don’t want to do. The only thing we can do is inform them on issues, and enable them to take a stance on their own. The strongest inhibitor to change is distance- when people feel removed from an issue, they rarely attempt to take a stance on it. Therefore, SACA’s outreach attempts to inspire people to change based on compassion and not fear or guilt. The most important thing I have learned as vice president of SACA is that it is easy to confuse the people that don’t care and the people that don’t know- in both cases there is a wall between the person and the issue. The difference is that with the people who just don’t know, the wall is easily broken with a little information. Once this wall is removed, people are free to make an educated decision about the issues that are important in our society. My motivation to advocate animal rights is best described by Anna Sewell who wrote that if we know of “cruelty or wrong that we have the power to stop, and do nothing, we make ourselves sharers in the guilt.”
Word Count without Quotes: 1,675 Word Count with Quotes: 1,715
In my post about Seeing Through the Fence, I emphasized that focusing on empathy and kindness is a much more effective way to teach people about animal rights than using fear and guilt. As I read Black Beauty, I noticed similar elements in the upbringing of the horses.
Each short chapter in Black Beauty has a sort of lesson to be learned- mostly having to do with kindness and sympathy. The book contrasts the behavior of different horses and links their behavior to the personalities and training methods of their Masters. The story is very simple- kindness is far superior to force or fear because it instills trust and respect. When teaching and behaving with kindness and love, humans and other animals learn to be peaceful, kind, and loving.
Black Beauty's first trainer was "a good, kind man...[giving the horses] good food, good lodging, and kind words; he spoke as kindly to...[them] as he did to his little children" (Sewell, 4). His second master, Squire Gordon, was also very kind, and so Black Beauty grew up "gentle and good, and never learn[ed] bad ways" (Sewell, 4). When Ginger was broken in however, she was shown only force. Her trainer Samson "was a strong, tall, bold man...there was no gentleness in him..but only hardness, a hard voice, a hard eye, a hard hand" (Sewell 26). When he worked her so hard that she felt miserable, the two began to fight until Ginger kicked him off of her. It wasn't until Mr. Ryder came out, with gentleness and kindness, that Ginger was able to be calmed.
I really like the fact that Black Beauty is written from the perspective of the horse. Even though I really care about animals, it is still sometimes hard for me to put myself in their place. Black Beauty describes how uncomfortable the bit is; "a great cold piece of steel as thick as a man's finger to be pushed into one's mouth, between one's teeth and over one's tongue, with the ends coming out at the corner of your mouth, and held fast there by straps over your head, under your throat, round your nose, and under your chin..."(Sewell 11). I really took notice of this passage; when I see these things in real life, I don't assume they're comfortable, but I also don't really think about how uncomfortable they are for the animals that wear them. Although it doesn't really compare, I was reminded of the collars that I put on my cats and dogs at home. I never really thought before if they liked having a tight collar around their neck with a bell constantly jingling below their head.. it was just something they had to wear. Although Black Beauty seems like it was written for a younger audience, I feel that there important things that can be learned from the story. As the more powerful species, we are obligated to treat other beings with respect. Refraining from doing so simply because it is easier not to, or because it is out of our way, or even (in my opinion) because we care about the way our food tastes more than we care about the wellbeing of others, is wrong. As I read about the kindness to animals in Black Beauty, I was reminded of farm sanctuary, where I am going to intern within the next year. Farm Sanctuary is a farm where people rescue animals that have been mistreated by factory farms and sometimes even dumped alive in piles of dead animals. The picture to the right shows a pig that was rescued from slaughter, and taken to farm sanctuary. The program supports better farming practices and is open to visitors to come meet farm animals, so that they can understand how they really act, and to learn that they are just like the animals they keep as pets. In Chapter 13, John Manly gives a speech to the schoolboys about cruelty and kindness. He says it is "hard hearted and cowardly... to hurt the weak and the helpless; ... and people [who are] kind to man and beast" are a mark of God's love (Sewell, 52).
Humanity's true moral test, its fundamental test, consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect human kind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it.
-Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Seeing Through the Fence ended with this quote, and it struck me because this idea is the base for my involvement in animal rights. The matter in which we treat the innocent, human or non human, is a measure of our morality. Animals will not do anything to us. They will not overpower us. We will never be their slaves. With this knowledge, the power we have over animals is endless, but it is not necessarily right. The compassion we extend to the innocent, knowing that we will not necessarily benefit from extending this compassion or be disadvantaged from the lack of it, evaluates humanity's goodness, the extent of its morality.
Although the technical quality of the documentary was very poor, as you can see in the DVD cover pictured below (Eleni Vlachos shot the the film with a Canon Mini-DVD), the content was excellent.
The film was organized into ten parts, each part consisting of a statement that many people in attempt to discredit vegetarianism (and failing in doing so), and followed with discourse from several views about this statement. Some of these include the idea that god gave humans the right to eat animals, the idea that meat is healthy and necessary.
One of the statements was even “meat just tastes too good to give up.” One thing I loved about this documentary was its candidness. Many animal rights films (such as Earthlings) thrust horrible images right in your face. Although for some, this is enough to take the issue seriously, for others, they just completely shut down. Seeing Through the Fence was refreshing because it talked about the issues seriously (and with humor) without pointing blame or forcing guilt on people. Overall, I think it was extremely effective. It reminds me of another animal rights documentary I have seen, Peaceable Kingdom. Peaceable Kingdom is all about compassion and good feelings. It is not negative or scary. I think this approach is a much better way to get people talking about issues, rather than scaring them so much that they change.
At the end of the screening, Eleni asked us, "What prevents ethical principles from being advanced to action?" One person said that convenience is an obstacle; another suggested that the problem doesn’t feel real enough to take seriously. I suggested that change is uncomfortable, and many people don’t want to change their lifestyles. I don’t think anyone knows the answer to this question, but it is something worth pondering. After all, when societies fail to act when witnessing immoralities, civilization ceases to exist.
In his article "The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis" Lynn write argues: "Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen...Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects." The article outlines the development of philosophies leading to the idea that man is the ruler of nature and focuses intently on the use of god to warrant this order. Like Lynn White's Article, Ryder identifies the links between the beginning of Christianity and the heightening of human status; "Man partook of animal nature, but he was, as Hamlet said, the 'paragon of animals,' the connecting link between angels and animals, the center and purpose of physical creation. Beasts existed only to serve his needs" (Ryder, 382). In one of his poems, Hopkins writes "To the father through the features of men's faces" (380). This quote reflects the belief that man is akin to divinity, he is the image of god. This is present in many ancient Christian art: This painting shows a picture of a man with animals at his feet: a clear depiction of human supremacy. When humans are "granted" the power to do with animals what they will (whether actually or mythically), the results are unpredictable. Ryder shows this when he states "Beasts have been feared, loved, beaten, caressed, starved, stuffed, and ignored" (381). Simply looking at the landscape we live on shows the extent of our dominance. Urbanization removes people from the idea that they are a part of nature because it is so separate from the natural environment. The picture below reminds us of the extent to which we have dominated the land. In this picture, the tainted brown water is the only remaining piece of nature. I believe that the views of Christianity are the fundamental influences on opinions towards animals and the environment today. Even people who identify themselves as atheists often share the view that man is dominant, which shows the cultural influence of religion. White points out that "It is often hard for the historian to judge, when men explain why they are doing what they do, whether they are offering real reasons or merely culturally acceptable reasons." Although I strongly oppose the view that man is superior to nature, I understand that religion is a hard thing to fight against when there are so many ardent believers. Therefore, to change feelings towards animals, I have discovered that one approach is to reevaluate religious beliefs. Basically, instead of blindly accepting what we have been told since birth, we should question and examine our fundamental values. Once again, White makes this point when he states: "Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not. We must rethink and refeel our nature and destiny."
Lynn White, Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis: http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/ENV-NGO-PA395/articles/Lynn-White.pdf
Wow!! This movie was good, and the 3D aspect made it amazing. I can't express how cool the 3D was; the fish seemed like they were swimming right in front of me, I even reached out to see if I could touch them. In fact, the documentary was so good that I'm taking my girlfriend to see it on Sunday so that I can watch it again.
As far as the actual movie, it concentrated on one of the largest marine events on Earth: the sardine run, a yearly swarm of pilchards (sardines) near the African Coast, and the effects it has on humans and other animals inhabiting the area. Every year, sardines are carried Northward by cool water, where copper sharks, cape gannets, and dolphins follow them as prey. These animals are not the only predators however. Human consumption of sardines has had a huge effect on the populations of the sardines, especially in the past century with the increase of technology. In one fishery, 100,000 tons of fish are caught in each yearly cycle; overfishing is a huge problem in many areas, and greatly disturbs the ecosystem. The documentary portrayed both the positives (economic) and negatives (environmental) of fishing, but also showed how it can be done sustainably.
The filming was done very well, and gave me the feeling that I was there in the action. One thing I really enjoyed was the perspective- I didn't feel like a human looking at animals. Rather, I felt like any part of the ocean- the fish, the birds, the sharks, even the water. This made the film not only more entertaining because I felt involved, but also made it more educational. I also really liked that it incorporated both humans and sea creatures; this made me feel connected rather than removed from the scenes. Instead of only allowing us to understand from the human perspective, the movie showed the event as a complex interaction between many species, including humans. In this way, the documentary excelled at showing the viewers the responsibility we have to protect this event by keeping the ecosystem healthy. It enforced the idea of responsibility through marine reservations and sustainable fishing not through preaching, but through understanding and care. In this way, I think the documentary was extremely successful in its conservation undertones. The picture below is an image from the movie. It shows some of the natives of South Africa fishing in the annual sardine run.
My favorite part of the movie was the action-intense scene with the bait ball (a swarm of fish all acting in unison that draws in larger predators but at the same time protects the sardine population). Another thing I noticed was the way the dolphins sounded- I had never really heard that sound before and it took me awhile to figure out what exactly it was. I included a clip of a dolphin sound at the bottom of the post. The video and pictures below depict a scene similar to the one seen in Wild Ocean. However, it doesn't at all compare to seeing the film in 3D.
As said in the film, a mass of sardines from above looks just like an oil spill:
I loved the way the documentary ended- giving statistics about the improvements Africa has made to it's marine environment provided inspiration for people to know that change is possible. The steps South Africa has taken to protect it's environment sets an example that the rest of the world needs to follow.
Ok, Star of Destiny wasn't that bad. It was obvious that the people who put it all together worked really hard (to try to keep the audience awake). But it was ridiculously cheesy. Several times throughout the movie a star above the screen would light up and sparkle, perhaps to evoke a feeling of wonder. For me, it just made me laugh (you can see the star in the picture below). Every couple of minutes I were startled with some kind of interaction, be it a gust of wind, a "snake" in my chair, or a "grasshopper" on my neck. Aside from these things though, the movie wasn't at all interesting. The time limit of 15 minutes was waaay to short to outline all of the accomplishments of Texas which made it all seem like a blur of people I knew nothing about... I couldn't really keep up with what it was talking about.
As far as animals are concerned, the most significant thing about them is how little they were talked about. One of the only times I remember animals mentioned was when they talked how awful the snakes were, and how they were all flying through the air when the cowboys tried to blow up a snake nest. They were present in many of the pictures though: mostly as (unsurprisingly) things that people used. I even think that the word "cattle" and "land " was used interchangeably for a moment. Horses were also present in a lot of the pictures, but weren't made to stand out any more than a car is today. Every time an animal was shown, it was under the rule of man (snakes being exterminated, cattle being herded, and horses being ridden). The film basically accentuated the view of animals in Texas history- the view that they are, and should be, dominated by men.
As a vegan, the ending "inspirational" talk telling me that I am a hero at heart because I have Texan blood was just a little too much cheese for me. As hard as it tried to entertain me, I was glad when the 15 minutes were over.
Texas, Our Texas:
25.2.09
I consider myself a very logical person. When I feel emotions, I usually first analyze them to figure out if I should even be feeling them, then try to adjust how I react so that it is appropriate. Emotion is irrational, and I used to consider it a weakness. As I was reading the last paragraph of Coetzee's Disgrace, I found myself overcome with this weakness.
"'Come.' Bearing him in his arms like a lamb, he re-enters the surgery. 'I thought you would save him for another week,' says Bev Shaw. 'Are you giving him up?' 'Yes, I am giving him up.'" [1]
This passage struck me because I felt like I really understood how the man felt. I've never euthanized an animal or anything near that, but I know what it feels like to have to give up, knowing that there is a solution, but it is completely out of reach. Twice in my life, I have been faced with the decision to put an animal down. Once, on Christmas Eve when I was about 14, I found a kitten shivering at my backdoor. Since it was so cold outside, I let her in and tried to feed her. She was terrible thin and I pleaded with my dad to let us take her to the veterinarian. The vet said that she was so underweight she probably wouldn't stay alive more than a week, and the most humane thing to do would be to put her down. I completely rejected this idea, believing that it was wrong to euthanize animals, and told the vet that I would try to make her healthy again. She died the next night. The second time I was told a vet that I should choose euthanasia was a few years later. A had seen 'neighborhood' (homeless) cat mauled by two dogs, and knew she was going to die soon. I frantically drove her all over the city trying to find someone who would treat her cheaply, being turned down by each one. The last place I tried was right down the street from my house, and the vet calmly told me that treatment would be $2,000, and if I wanted instead to let her go, he would take care of it. Faced with the inevitable, I sat down and cried, in my nightclothes in the middle of the vets office. It was humiliating, but I couldn't help it. I knew that this cat could easily (but expensively) be saved, but it was impossible in this case. At that time, I was sad because I didn't want to let go of a cat that I loved, and so it was basically a selfish reaction. In fact, I believe that a lot of love, and emotional reactions to 'wrong-doing' is selfish, because we are reacting to the way the event makes us feel, and not the actual problem with the event itself. In Disgrace, Lucy says, "So if we are going to be kind, let it be out of simple generosity, not because we feel guilty or fear retribution." [2] I feel that this mirrors the way I feel about kindness: it shouldn't be for the sake of ourselves, but for the sake of kindness to others.
Every week I table for SACA, and nearly every week someone comes by the table and says, 'ooh! I love animals!' They might come to one meeting, but after realizing that our idea of "animal rights" extends far beyond puppies and kittens, they quickly disappear. If someone decides that they want to extend their love to animals, it should be to all animals and not just the animals that benefit them as pets, otherwise it is just more selfishness. Once animals are used to entertain us, that sympathy goes away. As Elizabeth Costello stated, "Once you are on show, you have no private life." [3] Kafka says, "If you go there [to the cage], you're lost." [4]. When animals are used for our pleasure, they become objects, their "body is just the engine shoving it forward." [5]
The two pictures below are at a protest I participated in at the Ringling Circus in Austin over the summer. Many parent's see the zoo as a beneficial experience for kids because it lets them see "wild" animals that they wouldn't get to see otherwise. But like the picture above [6] suggests, seeing a captured animal does not give the same experience as seeing a wild animal.
I personally believe this is wrong because I love animals, but I am offended when people claim to love animals, but don't take the time or effort to figure out what they really love. Most of the time, it's simply the way animals make them feel. Tomorrow SACA is holding a rally against Puppy Mills, and I'm sure I'll run into one of these people. As hard as it is, I'll try to treat them with respect because I'm glad that they at least care, at some base level. Boycotting Petland in Austin
Even though I used to see emotions as a weakness, for the past few years I have slowly begun to change my mind. Letting ourselves become emotional is not weak because it is irrational, it is simply scary because it can't be controlled. I believe that logic and reason are essential to a working world, but emotion is the base of happiness. It should never be used as a replacement for reason, but likewise should never be discredited. Although I still consider myself a rational person, I have changed the way I think. When I feel something, I don't focus so much on whether or not the reaction is reasonable, but rather why I feel that way in the first place. For me, it places my thoughts more on the outside world rather on the inside (where I have been for way too long), because I think of what exactly it was that prompted the emotion. This way of thinking has deeply extended my compassion for others, and has really changed the way I feel about animals. I have always considered myself an "animal lover," but instead of being the person who cares about dogs because they make me feel good, I have become the person who cares about all animals because I have founded my beliefs on morality. I feel that there is an essential difference between these two things, and emotion shouldn't always be disqualified. For me, it has contributed to real growth of spirit and mind.
[1]: Animal Humanities Course Packet: "Disgrace," Coetzee, pg. 349 [2]: Animal Humanities Course Packet: "Disgrace," Coetzee, pg. 334 [3]: Elizabeth Costello, 33 [4]: Animal Humanities Course Packet: A Report for an Academy, pg. 324 [5]: Animal Humanities Course Packet: Ted Hughes, a Second Glance at a Jaguar, pg. 331 [6]: http://www.dawnwatch.com/PhillyZooElephant.jpg
"Whether the Holocaust could ever be part of any analogy, much less this one, has been regularly debated and disputed. It is the event beyond analogy, many people say." [1] I think this statement is both valid and invalid. The Holocaust was an event that we, as those who can only study it, will never feel for ourselves. Thus, making a comparison between the feelings of Holocaust victims and any other event, such as slaughterhouse victims, is partially unfounded, because we are not feeling either of these things. What can be compared is the outside perspective- such as the patterns we see in treatment and behavior. I do not think this is wrong; as described in Earthlings, "one group of living beings anguishes beneath the hands of another." [2] This is a true parallel, it does not suggest that the Holocaust victims were any less victims, nor that animals are any more equal to humans, rather it simply states patterns of behavior. An analogy such as this serves more as an eye opener to patterns of behavior than a factual compare/contrast between two events. The point isn't to say that animals are Holocaust victims, but to suggest that our treatment of animals is wrong, as was the treatment of Jews. As Elizabeth Costello states, "Each day a fresh holocaust, yet, as far as I can see, our moral being is untouched." [3] This seems a desperate attempt to get people to listen, because when it comes to topics that suggest problems with our moral behavior, it is oftentimes easiest to stubbornly resist. Likewise, Derrida describes a different sort of holocaust, much like the treatment of animals, where it is humans that are "more numerous and better fed... [to be] destined in always increasingly numbers for the same hell.." [4] Again, I don't believe that Derrida is trying to say that the holocaust is equal to our system of animal treatment. He replaces the animals in our system with humans as an attention grabber- a way, successful or not, to get people to take the situation more seriously. Once again, Costello attempts to get her audience to sympathize with animals, to attempt to become them for an instant: "I can think my way into the existence of a bat or a chimpanzee or an oyster.." [5] Although I think this is a great strategy to create caring feelings towards another being, it does not necessarily create an accurate representation of their lives. I usually try to stay away from comparisons between events such as the holocaust or slavery and animal treatment. Although I think the comparisons are valid, many people do not. I talk to people so that they listen to me, not shut me out, and if people are offended, then I am not reaching out to them properly.
As these pictures show, the treatment of animals is serious enough to be described in itself. It does not need to be compared to the holocaust in order for people to care about it. picture 1: [6]
Every year in mid April, my mom would take me and my brother to the small town of Poteet where would enjoy the yearly strawberry festival. Every year was the same; we would visit the cultural booths, eat creative food, and pet the animals, and nothing seemed wrong. One part of the festival that I particularly remember was a section where children could ride ponies, like the ride pictured below. I had been doing that for several years until I was about eight years old, when it started to feel different. That year, I was riding a pony when I noticed how slow she was moving. I looked around and noticed for the first time the course she was insisted to walk, a small path that takes no more than four minutes to finish. Her head hung low, and she stopped several times during the brief ride, to which the caretakers detachedly responded by tugging her forward. Noticing these things bothered me, but what disturbed me most was looking up, and seeing another child contently bouncing on his horse. The gratification that he felt using the horse to entertain a small portion of his day disgusted me and I immediately got off. Although I didn’t truly understand the emotions I was feeling until years later, I chose not to ride horses at carnivals anymore.[i] The use of animals in our society is extensive So why did animals become a resource at the total disposal of human desires? Is it ok to use animals for our needs, so long as humans are benefitted? If a cure for cancer is discovered by subjecting countless animals to pain, is it worth it? Many people believe so. What if a new brand of mascara is developed after blinding thousands of animals in labs, and subjecting them to the same pain as the cancer research? I believe that many people, choosing between animal welfare and new makeup, would morally disagree. Likewise, slaughterhouses often evoke much more antipathy than agricultural farms where animals are raised more ‘humanely.’ Deciding which situations are morally acceptable and which are not is very complex, and depends largely on the human making the decision. I believe that the issues involving animals used for food, entertainment, and research are a few of the most pressing issues specifically because they involve such a high number of participants. This link[ii] directs to a youtube video of animal experimentation. Many people believe that animal experimentation is morally acceptable, not knowing what it entails. Exposing ourselves to the real things that occur every day is essential in order to make decisions about them, rather than be blinded by the milk "containers showing 'contented' cows, whose real lives we want to hear nothing about, eating eggs and drumsticks from 'happy' hens, and munching hamburgers advertised by bulls of integrity who seem to command their fate."[iii] If we do not know what is going on, then how can we decide if they need to change? As an advocate for animal rights, these situations really sadden me. Seeing any animal suffering, even a small spider drowning in a pool of water, tugs at my heart. However, death and suffering are a part of life, and each of these individual cases of suffering animals is not a reason for animals to have rights. As far as the animal rights spectrum is concerned, I’m closest to the “Jain vegan animal liberation warrior,” minus the Jain because I’m not religious. But as for my beliefs, I think in a perfect world animals would not be controlled by humans, and in the current world, a gradual disintegration of the animals-as-resources view would be ideal. Seeing animals suffer and feeling empathy for them is an entirely human reaction, and determining rights based on these feelings is erroneous: the inherent value of animals is entirely separate from any emotion humans feel towards them. So as for each of these situations, none of them is the true problem. There is no decision to be made in these situations because the real issue is something much larger. The real problem is the system that grants humans complete control over animals, the system that turns sentient beings into economic resources.[iv] Emotional defenses are not necessarily rational arguments, so as I defend my position as an animal rights advocate, I will attempt to remain as logical as possible. I believe that animals have the same value as humans. Many attempt to argue that because animals are less intelligent or cannot rationalize they do not possess value. However, many people are less intelligent than other people, and many people are affected with mental disorders that hamper their abilities to rationalize. If animals are denied rights simply because they lack certain abilities that we decide are important, then humans who lack those abilities must also be denied rights, or at least must have reduced rights. The mere trait of being Homo Sapiens Sapiens is also another invalid reason to grant higher value to certain beings, but it took me a long time to understand why. Earthlings compares speciesism to racism and sexism, because it assigns different values to members based on the group that they belong to, in this case, their species. However, biologically, as with all animals, humans have evolved to care about their own above all other species, it is simply survival. Since the human race is not at risk for extinction, and since there are alternatives to all of uses animals serve to us, it does not matter that the animals we use are of a different species. Essentially, our desire for economic resources does not trump the value of animals because these uses are readily served through non-animal sources. Emotionally, we care more about humans and human interests because we have evolved that way, but logically, humans are not worth more than any other species. Nature treats us no different than the animals we share the earth with: “Like us, these animals embody the mystery and wonder of consciousness. Like us, they are not only in the world, they are aware of it. Like us they are the psychological centers of a life that is uniquely their own. In these fundamental respects humans stand ‘on all fours,’ so to speak.”[v] Therefore, it is not the differences in our abilities or traits that denies certain beings rights, but rather it is the similarities we all share that grants us all the same value. The value of life is inherent. My idea of animal rights[vi] essentially recognizes that animals should be free to pursue their own interests with minimal interference from humans. This includes separating animals from our economic interests, recognizing the natural habitat of other animals and respecting the land by living sustainably so that it may be used mutually between all species, and finding and using alternates to other uneconomic uses of animals, including research and diet. These are the goals which I think people should strive for, but I do not expect immediate results or agreement. In order to implement these goals, awareness first needs to spread concerning the specific details of animal exploitation. This alone will create action because many people care about the welfare of animals, even if they do not agree with complete animal liberation. When laws begin to pass that grant animals better treatment, the entire issue becomes more important because it has entered politics. Basic laws, such as better factory farm treatment and cage-free eggs[vii]
[viii](pictured above), a law which passed in California, only begin the process that enables people to validate the inclusion of animal interests in politics. As women’s rights were eventually recognized, animal interests will slowly gain importance until they are granted rights. Large institutions can also play a role in quickening the process that I hope is someday achieved. For instance, the National Institute of Health could become a leader in outlawing the use of animals for research by refusing to participate in vivisection. Universities, such as UT, who include vegetarian options in their dining programs[ix] recognize the importance of the choice to be vegetarian, which trickles down to other people who use the cafeterias. Eventually, the choice to be vegetarian ceases to be taboo, and may even become widespread. It is small changes in the way people perceive their relationships with animals and the choices that they can make that really determines outcomes. When people realize that the choices they make have a direct impact on animals, and when they decide that they do not want to have these impacts, then things easily change. In this way, people vote for the kind of world that they want through the way they spend their money, as Anna Lappe said, "Every time you spend you're money, you're casting a vote for the kind of world you want."[x] It is facilitating these realizations that is hard. The way to begin to achieve the goal of liberating animals is through outreach and education. Of course, just as there are still racists and sexists, not everyone will agree that animals deserve to be free from human constraint and exploitation, or that they have any sort of rights. Regardless, I believe that the biggest obstacles to animal liberation are not due to differences in moral opinion, but rather the stubbornness to change. This stubbornness is evident in all radical ideas, and is usually overcome by the will to change. If a small number of people who really care work intensely, the change is much easier. As Margaret Mead said,“Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”[xi] Word Count: 1,420
Picture 2: Blackface, the traits of blacks are exaggerated to seem less human (reminds me of theriomorphism).
In the last few chapters of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Rick Deckard is faced with twisted emotions towards androids, becoming attached to one, Rachel, who is helping him kill other androids. When they're together in bed, Rachael tells Rick not to "think too much about it...if you think too much, if you reflect on what you're doing- then you can't go on...from a philosophical standpoint it's dreary" (page 194). Essentially, she tells Rick to lie to himself, to pretend that she is a woman. The ambiguity of the real world seems to be a recurring idea throughout the book; it is hard to tell what is real and what is not. Towards the end of the book, Rick doesn't even know what he believes is right and wrong. He consults Mercer, who tells them that he "will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity" (page 179). In other instances, Buster Friendly reveals to everyone that Mercer, and thus Mercerism, is not even real. To this, Irmgard and the other androids decide that Mercerism exists only to separate humans from Androids based on a feeling that only humans can prove exists.
based on the anthropomorphic bases for the arguments. For example, some argue that since it cannot be proven that animals want to be free, or that they cannot feel pain like humans, that they do not have the right to be free, or to feel comfort. Those who argue that they do possess these qualities are participating in anthropomorphism. Others, utilitarians, argue that animals should be treated with respect, but there is a limit, "actions are not right or wrong in themselves, but only insofar as they bring happiness or cause pain" (page 177). Others believe man haThe complexity of reality obviously extends to the world we live in, outside the book. In Chapter 7 from Ecocentrism by Greg Garrard (the course packet) analyzes what humans know, what they think they know, and how they think of animals compared to the cultural context animals have in society. The first few pages detail some of the ways that groups of people think about animals, including liberationists, ecocentrists, utilitarians, and those who criticize them. It seemed that the arguments for animal rights (especially the liberationists) were disqualifieds the right to be in complete control of animals (based on divine power, reason, intelligence, etc,) Mostly, all of these arguments, like most other arguments, can be falsified in some philosophical way. Once again, what is right and what is wrong (reality) is lost. What I believe falls somewhere along the liberationist-ecophilosophy line; in the complex food web system, there are points where humans kill and eat animals (and the other way around), it is natural and sustainable, and probably has been happening for thousands of years. However, I believe it is wrong to mass produce, chemically alter, and routinely slaughter animals in unnecessary abundance and at the stake of the environment. The system that currently exists is damaging to our health, to the environment, and (in my opinion) to the welfare of animals. The concepts of intelligence, empathy, reasoning, etc. are just human-created ideas that are used to justify behavior that we would otherwise consider immoral. It has been used before, with other races and genders, and it is being used again now. This way of thinking is full of error though. Firstly, the true abilities of others can never really be known. Furthermore, these abilities differ among the human race, let alone among other species. There are humans who are far more intelligent, far less empathetic, or far more reasonable than others. Yet the common belief is that all humans have equal rights (even if they are not granted). If we grant rights based on superior qualities, then we must also rate these traits among humans.
On a quick environmental note, humans dominate animals and the Earth under the philosophy that we are something separate and better, that we have the right to dominate because we have the ability to. But, what species that dominates has ever been able to survive long? Using our "intelligence" (or reason) that makes us so separate from animals, shouldn't we realize that an Earth without biodiversity is an unhealthy Earth? On page 279, the reasoning of ecophilosophers is described: "in some cases, exploding populations of a certain species must be culled if they threaten a local environment as whole." The human species seems to be the one most fit for this description. Are we lacking in retrospect? The truth is that we are just a part of the biological system called Earth as plants and animals; the truth is, humans are treated no differently by nature than any other beings.
I couldn't really give an excellent philosophical argument like the ones we read, so I could only try to verbalize what I thought when I read these arguments. Basically, I think that the belief in human supremacy is wrong because it is unsustainable and because it attempts to justify suffering in other, sentient beings (who I believe can feel pain and happiness, if not more complicated emotions). I also think that when we can see pain and suffering, we should do all we can to try to stop it. As Jeremy Bentham said, "the question is not can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?"
The recurring idea of the importance of animals and empathy towards them in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" was really interesting to me; caring for an animal is considered virtuous and a reflection of higher moral status. Specifically, the abundance of technology and the rarity of living things forces people to appreciate life. Here, In our world, the use and value of technology is steadily increasing, and people rely less on themselves and others. In the book, however, technology is used to try to replace the feeling of living things (like electric animals) and emotions (like the mood box), and is worth much less than life. While we praise and push technological development, Rick Deckard thinks of "The tyranny of an object... it doesn't know I exist. Like the androids, it had no ability to appreciate the existence of another" (page 40).
The fact that this value of animals was not created until they were nearly extinct shows that empathy is conditional. In the definitions of empathy, there is a quote from Ducasse: "For the most part we empathize inanimate things only in so far as we are interested in them aesthetically" (page 242). I think this exemplifies out attitude towards many things. Yes, humans can feel love, empathy, caring, and a wide range of other emotions, but usually only when it affects us in some way. Maybe this is why we care so much more about "cute" things, like puppies and kittens, and not "ugly" things, like cockroaches. I think this is why so many people have a hard time applying basic standards of humaneness to their own lives. One example that always comes to mind is the fact that choosing not to support the torture and slaughter of animals, simply over pleasing the appetite is a hard choice for many people to make. Bentham notes the connection between the merciless attitudes of people towards animals and racism. "The day has been.. in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing as... the inferior races of animals are still" (page 245). Like previous behaviors towards other races or the opposite sex, many people still find it easy to exclude animals from their circle of empathy. Hopefully however, the majority of people will realize that as sentient beings, animals deserve to be treated with respect and compassion.
Many people like to argue that empathy is specifically a human quality, and in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," animals and androids are not considered to be empathetic, and it is this fact that allows humans to distinguish androids from humans. One of the definitions of humane is "behavior or disposition towards others such as befits a human being" (page 232). However, I disagree with this idea. I believe that animals too can feel empathy, and that Dick's view of empathy as a "biological insurance" (page 29) applies to other beings also. In the definitions of empathy, Ogden's idea that "The chimpanzee is able to empathize.." is included. (page 242). When people pretend to know that animals lack certain things that humans possess, I usually see the statement as ignorant or at least flawed. Obviously, no one can know for sure who (of any type of animal, including humans) feels what. In "The Animal That Therefore I Am," Derrida writes "to the naive assurance of man: How does he know, by the force of his intelligence, the secret internal stirrings of animals? By what comparison between them and us does he infer the stupidity that he attributes to them?" (page 218). Humans like to pretend that because of their superior intelligence (which I also disagree with), they have the right to judge who is treated humanely, and who isn't. I don't think we have this right, and the idea that animals can be treated as objects for our use needs to change. Sadly, because humans are so self absorbed, I think that this realization will only happen and people will take action only when something horrible begins to happen that directly affects humans (mass extinction of animals, disease, starvation, etc.).
This story made me think about my past pets, and the memories I keep of them. I have had a lot of pets in my life, but there are a notable few. Graves seemed to be very fond of his dog Blue, considering him his one good dog, "a cleancut fellow who obeyed a few selected commands, was loyal and gentle with his masters, and refrained conscientiously from 'bad' behavior" (123). After reading this, I immediately thought through my pets, and guiltily wondered if I considered any of my dogs a "nice dog." My family had a couple of dogs, all of which I loved. It only took me a couple of seconds to realize that yes, of course I had a "nice dog," and I felt horrible for even questioning her niceness. Rosy is technically my brother's dog, but we've had her since I was 7. I consider her mine.
Rosy has had her fare share of dramas and troubles, but she is nevertheless an amazing dog. As a small pup, she made a habit of sucking on my sister's pacifiers (my sister is now 13). Coincidentally, within a couple of weeks of being adopted, she had to have emergency surgery to remove a pacifier nub from her stomach (or intestines, I'm not sure) which she had chewed off and swallowed.
As a teenage dog, there were a couple of months where my family felt as though she was "cheating" on us. She is very smart, and no matter how much wire, bricks, wooden boards, stones, and anti-escape shock-lines we piled up around the fence yard, she always found a way to escape. Eventually we came to accept that she needed her free time. One day we got a call from some people in a nearby neighborhood saying that one of our dogs had been living with them. We finally realized that Rosy was actually living a double-life, spending days at the neighbors house. For my family, this memory of Rosy fits right along with memories of my sister, my dad, and everyone else. I like that they consider her as much a family member as I do.
In the end of "Blue and Some Other Dogs," Graves describes emptiness that "people foolish enough to give an animal space in their lives"(135) feel when their pet dies. Once again, I asked myself a question that made me feel guilty. I wondered if I had ever had a pet that died and left me feeling empty. No, I have not experienced that feeling, but I do have that pet. I feel guilty because I have had two other animal companions that should have made me feel that way when they 'died', but they both ran away (most likely to die). When pets run away, I don't feel empty because I never have to deal with the finality of them leaving. I always hope that one day I will see them again, and thus I never have to deal with the sorrow of their death. It has been five years since my cat, Nala, disappeared. She was old and sick, and most certainly died. Like Rosy, she was one of the main pets. But I never felt that pain when she left, and I feel horrible about that.
I know though, that when Rosy dies, it's going to feel like the end of the world, at least for a little while. The vet recently told us that she had only about a year left, and I felt this horrible chest pain that I only get when I'm trying not to cry. For me, Rosy is that dog like Blue. She is mischievous and independent, but she is a great dog. She would attempt to take the place of my parents when they left us alone as children (taking the parent's seat in the car when they left for a few minutes), coming and sitting near us when we cry, and leading my newer, younger dogs into the greenbelt and beyond, teaching them how to evade our traps intended keep them at home. When she leaves us, I don't really know how I'll cope with it. She will be one of the dogs to leave that huge empty space. But she is still here and for now, I should enjoy the time I still have, and not prematurely worry about her death.
I also decided to try cats again... maybe I shouldn't overlook the cat as possibility as my totem animal. The website says that cats are Astute, Clever, Secretive, Mysterious, Intelligent, Intuitive, Supernatural, Watchful, Selective, and Independent. All of these traits strongly describe me (except for supernatural). So according to this website, the cat would be my totem animal..
According to this website, the gopher "shows us how to flow through life in a balanced way by always staying connected to the rhythm of earths heartbeat." 
Some other animals that I feel describe me very well:
