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.
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:
