The Evil -isms: Sexism and Speciesism

Of all the challenges I've faced in my life, sexism is the most vexing.  It has been a constant source of anger and frustration; mostly anger.  It comes from the media, the way history is taught in classes, and even my friends at times.  One of the worst instances is the whole joke about how women are always told to "make me a sandwich" because they belong in the kitchen.  Just typing this phrase sets light to my internal kindling and builds quite a fire.  I really can't even express how enraged I get when I hear boys say stupid stuff like that.  I've lost friends because I couldn't stand their "friendly teasing" made me too angry.  So I found this reading mentally stimulating and related to a topic of personal importance.

"Women who avoid acknowledging that they are animals closely resemble men who prefer to ignore that women are human." (590)

I can see how the instinctual reaction is to fight fire with fire.  They try to set themselves apart from all the criticism by denying any connection exists but that's just acting as immature and rude as those who oppress them.  It's hard not to fall into that trap even when you're aware of it.  My personal defiance is never of the verbal sort but tends to be of the same reactionary nature.  I've always hated the idea that women are weak and physically incapable of certain activities.  As a middle schooler, I got unbelievably annoyed when the boys said girls can't play football so I'd prove them wrong during our lunch recess.  I did enjoy playing because I loved the activity but I was so focused on proving myself most of the time that I really never got to relax and have fun.  So I guess this all goes back to our early theme of living reactionary versus proactively in the even bigger theme of sympathy and connection to creatures different from ourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CWMCt35oFY
Watch this clip on Disney movies and Sexism to see its pervasiveness in our culture

"Frequent capitalization literally elevates Man above other animals, whose names remain lowercase." (591)

On a more general discriminatory trend trend, I've noticed this issue of capitalization from personal reading experience.  Particularly, in the bible I always found it interesting to see which words were deemed worthy of a capital letter and which were relegated to the lowercase.  It's always made me wonder, when did the capitalization become an issue?  The bible wasn't originally written in English after all.  We tend to think of the original language used to write the bible was Hebrew and Aramaic but there are actually even older translations.  So did any of these ancient languages actually have capital letters?  I know for a fact that some don't.  So when did we first make this change to Man above beast?

http://www.lifescapemag.com/why-animal-advocasy-can-be-seen-as-feminist-issue/

"The said question of the said animal in its entirety comes down to knowing not whether the animal speaks but whether one can know what respond means." (597)

It's so odd that we presume to believe that animals can't actually respond to our language or understand our motives.  What defines a response in human terms?  The ability to communicate back within the same language?  I find that rather limiting.  In fact, most of human's communication is carried through body language and our facial expressions.  Very little of what we say gets through without these physical cues.  And actually, because animals don't have the physical capacity to speak, they're that much more expressive with their actions.  We judge "higher intelligence" on such flimsy, human-based attitudes but it seems to be our only point of reference.  And that comes back to my last reference to the text.

"Presumption is our natural and original disease." (584)

Have we not heard the multitudes of quotes relating to pride and it's negative consequences?  Pride comes before a fall.  Pride is the original sin.  Hubris always leads the Greek tragedy to it's depressing end.  We have so many little sayings and catch phrases about the dangers of pride but we seem incredibly bad at following our own advice.  I personally think we go wrong with knowing where we need to be careful or aware.  A general sense of awareness of the world around us would help reduce the pride issue without hardly trying.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2009/02/rashad_mccants.php

Cages

Although not all of our readings were identical, I found a common theme running through it of cages and the prisons we find ourselves in.  They're not always physical manifestations and sometimes they're even self-constructed.  Though in the case of Red Peter, his was all too real.

"I had to find a way out if I wanted to live, but that this way out could not be reached by escaping." (561)

When I read of his experiences helping to free him from his cage, it took me a couple of readings to understand that the prison he was escaping was not the actual iron bars, but the mental imprisonment.  When they captured him, they also destroyed his reason for existing.  He was no longer in a setting that held any meaning for him, or that he found meaning in.  Much of his journey to the island was about trying to fid a reason not to go insane in captivity.  In reminds me of a quote mentioned only a few pages later.

"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons.  They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men." -Alice Walker (578)

When we take away that reason for existence or try to substitute something else in, we are playing god.  Is that not rather egotistical?  I think it is.  We can hardly stay in control of our own destinations, so how can we do any better controlling others?  Sadly, it seems to be a very human sentiment- that we always know better for others.  I know I've been guilty of claiming to obviously know the right path for a friend or sibling.  It seems so simple when you're not immersed in the situation. And isn't that what empathy is trying to correct?  By seeing it from their shoes, we take in all the earlier unnoticed complications and dilemmas.  If we can't do that, then we'll just continue the cycle of imprisonment to each other and other creatures.

"Silently, a vision enters, slips through the focused silence of his shoulders, reaches his heart, and dies." (565)

http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&global=1&q=cages#/d69scc

This poem of a powerful cat slowly giving into his capture was pretty heartbreaking.  Haven't we all felt the same at some point?  I know I've gone through times when I felt trapped in who people saw me as.  Or even worse, trapped under a mountain of school work (I'm pretty sure there's not a student out there who can deny this!).  There's hardly an experience worse than realizing how much is being expected of you when you worry you can't live up to such expectations.  Being trapped is more than being physically locked away.

"That is the kind of poetry I bring to your attention today: poetry that does not try to find an idea in the animal, that is not about the animal, but is instead the record of an engagement with him." (Coetzee 96)

The last words I wanted to leave you with are of the more physical realm.  Costello made an excellent argument that poetry doesn't always have to be metaphysical.  It's not always about a hidden meaning or archetype.  Sometimes, the poet is reacting instinctually to the emotions of an experience.  The only time I allow myself to play poet is when something deeply effects me.  It's never very good poetry but it usually speaks pretty clearly of how I feel.  So while school is all about exercising the mind, don't let the heart atrophy.

http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=heart#/demwcy

Compassion for All

"The ideal state of humans among animals is not one in which wild animals become tame." (519)

I know this quote is a rather different start from where most of our latest reading led, but I found it particularly important.  Everyone knows a line exists between humans.  Whether it's due to our ability to reason, the environments we create around ourselves, or something else- we can't deny it exists.  I'm not doubting the ability to bridge that gap either.  There are plenty of instances of man and beast sharing in something deeper than can be explained with the scientific capabilities we have now.  But I think there's a danger in assuming that a perfect world would entail animals becoming complacent and tame with our way of life.  That's just arrogant to believe ours is the more civilized way.  Well, technically we are "civilized" but here I'm referring to the connotations the word holds- not the dictionary definition.  It isn't dolphins who are polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.  It isn't lizards who create acid rain.  And it certainly isn't ants who create weapons of mass destruction.  For all our accomplishments, we should never be so vain as to think our way is the "right way."  And for me, that belief is what this quote is trying to resist.

"The Animal Liberation Front, for example, is committed to rescuing animals from labs and exposing abuses that are hidden from the public, but they are sworn to nonviolence." (552)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0810/S00021.htm

More on track with out studies of animal misuse and abuse, I found I had to challenge my personal bias and prejudice.  I don't think it was my parents who instilled the idea in me that animal activists are merely "crazy hippies" or some variant.  More likely it's been my exposure of peer pressure and the general social media that have led to such a conclusion.  But as I read the essay explicitly showing links between the holocaust and our current "usage" of animals, I had to realize that some of my ideas were simply flawed.  Animal activists aren't just deranged people on the fringe of society.  Sure, there are a few that certainly go to great lengths to get the message across- usually to their own detriment.  But for the most part, they're well-informed individuals who are trying to enact a change in a corrupt system.  I wish that the populace at large could understand and see beyond the stereotypes.  Of course, the only way to change a group's opinion is to take each one as an individual and bring about change slowly.  It's a painful process but it's the only way we can guarantee the change will last and isn't just a gut reaction move that shifts back with time.

"Though I have no reason to believe that you have at the forefront of your minds what is being done to animals at this moment in production facilities (I hesitate to call them farms any longer), in abattoirs, in trawlers, in laboratories, all over the world, I will take it that you concede me the rhetorical power to evoke these horrors and bring them home to you with adequate force, and leave it at that, reminding you only that the horrors I here omit are nevertheless at the center of this lecture." (Coetzee 63)

Although Elizabeth Costello at times holds a tenuous position in my like/dislike of her, in this case I find her to be extremely rational.  All too often I see horrific pictures or gruesome tales that shock for a while but then slowly fade to memory.  Sometimes it even gets transferred into the part of the brain where you store scary stories for around a campfire.  Such tactics are only effective for a short time.  To have a sustained conversation in the public about animal cruelty, we must keep from tugging on the heart strings so much.  It's definitely difficult when so much of this is emotionally charged content, especially in reference to animals we often house as pets, but I think it's critical to keep a rational, logical mind when discussing such topics.  How else an we convince the critics that say we're just bleeding hearts?  Like everything in life, it's all a matter of balance.

http://dedroidify.blogspot.com/2008/08/888.html

What is the natural state of humanity?

All of the recent reading we've been assigned has made me question what the natural state of humanity is.  Are we naturally evil but seeking redemption?  Or are we basically good but make mistakes and commit sins?  I've heard so many opposing opinions.  I mean, this is the basis of philosophy isn't it?  I suppose the best way to start such an inquiry is to begin at the beginning- with the actions of children.

"The absence of parish officers who should be controlling the boys is an intentional rebuke on Hogarth's part; he agreed with Henry Fielding that one of the causes for the rising crime rate was the lack of care from the overseers of the poor, who were too often interested in the posts only for the social status and monetary rewards they could bring." (490)

The quote I want to begin with draws from the plate engravings on the stages of cruelty.  They depict various gangs of boys viciously torturing animals through multiple means.  The children are left untended by adults, probably because they are just poor orphans.  And yes, they're being terribly cruel yet I don't think it's simply because they have free reign.  It's not that they're "free," they're actually just being ignored.  They were probably ignored most of their short lives and this lashing out is because no one was ever there to protect them from the same sorts of acts by adults or fellow children.  The boys are being shaped by their lack of community.  By the absence of compassion.  They're trying to garner power over something because they are so powerless in their own lives.  I can hardly stand to think on the pain they're giving these innocent animals but I believe it's not because they are naturally savage like the boys of Lord of the Flies.

http://www.globalnerdy.com/2008/10/21/salmagundi-for-tuesday-october-21-2008/

"Kids who tend to be completely unresponsive to human counselors and who generally shun physical and emotional closeness with people often find themselves talking openly to, often crying in front of, a horse." (501)

In fact, here is evidence that kids aren't heartless monsters.  At least, not naturally.  I've actually read about this type of therapy for children who have been through difficult circumstances.  It works with dogs as well but I think horses are more effective because of their size.  They're quite large animals but are easily scared an usually quite gentle.  They have such human qualities and seem bigger than life to young kids.  I can't quite put my finger on how this is a magical combination but it really is.  There have even been programs started that take ponies into hospitals to visit patients and make them better.  I think they particularly worked with cancer patients and the changes in people's attitude towards life is astounding.   So how can children be evil if they open up so much to animals like this?

http://sedona-healing-retreats.com/equine-assisted-therapy.html

"They found, however, not only that these families owned far more pets than other households in the same community but also that few of the animals were older than 2." (498)

Ok, so not all cases are so beautifully cut and dry.  I pulled this bit from the explanation of animal abuse being intimately linked to child abuse and general human cruelty.  In the article, it explained that children who had been abused tended to hurt pets or other animals in order to regain some power over their situation.  I was immediately reminded of Ender's Game and Ender's brothers sadistic tendencies.  I know it's just a fictional character just there are always cases where people hurt animals and not always for good reasons.  So why are these abusive caretakers the owners of more pets than others?  There's something innately wrong with that.  I understand why the animals are so young- they probably run off or become violent in response to the maltreatment-but why the number of them?  It's obviously not a good situation for anyone.  I just don't know.

"Those selected were chosen for their lack of psychological issues, crime history, and medical disabilities in order to obtain a representative sample." (486)

The last piece of evidence on the debate of natural good vs. natural evil draws a totally different conclusion.  During the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments, the people used in simulations dealing with power and cruelty used the most average of people.  And still, the terrible crimes against other people persisted.  It didn't matter that they had an easy or hard childhood, whether they were raised Christian or Atheist, whether they had a genetic predisposition towards a certain temperament.  So how could they fall into such base acts of torture and humiliation of others?  That's still a mystery to me.

I can't stand to believe that we are naturally sinful.  I can't agree with the thought that we are doomed to create more misery, because if that's true than I don't know why I try each and every day.  So whether true or not, I chose to see the good as the basis of life.

Vivisection

I know our prompt was to refute the arguments made on vivisection.  I know that like any good English students, I should analyze the semantics and argue about ad hominem or straw men or any number of logical fallacies.  But I want to say right now, that it was hard to tear myself away from the meaning of the arguments and the very real problems they deal with.  Our world is far from perfect but there are certain horrors that we must face and rebel against.  I found plenty of over-exaggerations in the articles and concepts that I don't agree with, but I can't find it within myself to completely justify vivisection.  That said,  I found a few instances I could refute with conviction.

"When the unfortunate creatures cried and moaned under the operations, many of the students actually mimicked their cries in derision." (466)

Once again, I'd like to draw knowledge from a novel I read, Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers.  There's a very primordial taboo centered on the dissection of creatures, particularly humans.  And for a long time (I'd even venture to say today) there was a fear of donating your body to science because of the treatment by medical students.  Everyone has heard the stories of medical students disrespecting the corpses and degrading the science that is meant to improve doctors technical skills, not make them less empathic towards their patients.  But Mary Roach, the author of Stiff visited several medical labs and found that the students were actually extremely respectful.  In fact, because each student practiced on the same body throughout the course, they sometimes became attached to the cadaver and it improved their ability to relate to patients.  Maybe there were problems of students acting questionably in the past, but the field of medicine has been quick to correct such inappropriate behavior.

http://ahdu88.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-bodies-exhibition-ridicule-human.html

There was another argument which I found to be rather unrealistic.

"Once nature ceased to be a constant antagonist, it could be viewed with affection.  Wilderness became attractive rather than ugly, wild animals might evoke sympathy rather than scorn." (475)

I think this is a construct of the human imagination more than a true blanket statement for the time.  People love the idea of nature.  They don't necessarily see the real thing though.  It's like going to the zoo and seeing the animals in cages and then claiming, "I love wild animals!"  It's simply unrealistic.  I'm not complaining about the attitude exactly.  It's these same zoo-visiting people that donate money for wildlife conservation and protection of our rain forests.  It's just they don't have a true understanding of what a wild animal is like.  There's too much Bambi versus man-eating tiger (sorry Bengal) and not enough people who see the whole range as a scale of grey.  We try so hard to impose our social constructs of good and evil on creatures that have their own needs and reasons for actions.  It just bothers me that we try to put them into neat little categories in which they will never quite fit.

But while we weren't asked to find support for the cases made in the articles, I was curious about some of the statements and decided to do a bit of personal research.  In particular, the author made a plea towards pathos in the stream of "where will vivisection end?"

"Next, perhaps, the inmates of our refugees for incurables-then the hopeless lunatic, the pauper hospital-patient, and generally "him that hath no helper"." (470)

As I read, I couldn't help but think of the famous quote (click here) about how "they" came for the different types of people but I didn't speak up because it wasn't me.  It's just so easy for little changes to accumulate into something dangerous.  And in truth, there has been human vivisection and not just in sci-fi or horror novels.  During WW2, the Japanese had a group called Unit 731 whose sole goal was to test the limits of human suffering and discover a means to produce weapons of mass destruction.  I don't want to spoil anyone's sleep with nightmares but they preformed unspeakable "tests."  They tested the extent of burns that humans can survive.  They took pregnant women and removed the fetuses for study. They instigated gangrene to watch it's progression and the effect on the body.  And these horrors weren't just limited to POWs or locals.  The Japanese also dropped packages of disease-infested clothes and food in parts of unoccupied China.

http://strangeworldofmystery.blogspot.com/2009/07/unit-731.html

As I said before, my goal isn't to ruin your day (and I sincerely hope I don't) but I can't believe that I had never heard of these experiments until.  I consider myself rather well-informed and I love learning about WW2 but it wasn't until I did some real digging that this information came to light.  And what's worse is how America reacted to this abomination.  When Japan surrendered to the Allied forces, General Douglas MacArthur made a secret deal with the head of the research which protected them from legal action by the US in exchange for their information on biological warfare.  The US felt the information might be "useful" and ignored the source.  Is this not as bad at the Holocaust which we so rage against in history textbooks?  And the Soviet Union, whom we cast as an enemy and "evil" nation, actually did prosecute and punish the members of the unit whom the US did not whisk away.  I find something ironic in our enemy being more just than the great United States.  It's definitely food for thought.

Alice Analyzation

I found reading these two articles on the meaning of the animals in Carroll's classic to be very revealing, though occasionally faulty.  Certain symbolism makes sense with the character's action but other assumptions felt forced and implied by the modern audience rather than the original meaning of the story.  For example, in Daniel's interpretation, Alice is transformed from protagonist to oppressor of the natural inhabitants of Wonderland.  While I can see truth in some examples, a few struck me as outlandish.

"He [the Cheshire Cat] is the inner anima of Alice's own predatory nature, and represents one path she could possibly take." (445)

The depiction of the Cheshire Cat from American Mcgee's Alice-a dark twisted video game version of the original concept.

http://community.livejournal.com/ru_horrorgames/tag/american%20mcgee's%20alice

Although Alice does get along best with the Cheshire Cat, I think that mostly stems from he relation with her pet cat Dinah.  But never does he act as an aggressive or dangerous character.  Enigmatic, yes, but never evil or predatory.  He doesn't even get into fights with the other creatures like Alice.  So while I can see the theme of Alice's growth into a sentient, aware member of this planet- I don't think she ever acts with cruel intent.

As for Bump's dissertation on the themes in Alice in Wonderland, I feel that the argument is always started on solid ground but moves towards a slippery slope.  Certainly principles only work when put in context of the real world.  As much as we wish it, the world will never be purely black and white.

"In 1859 The Origin of Species proved to the Victorians that the lineage of all living beings could be traced back to common ancestors, demonstrating that animals are indeed our "kindred": members, like us, of the "household" we now call the world ecosystem." (448)

A political cartoon of Charles Darwin.

http://ca.expasy.org/spotlight/back_issues/111/

Yes, Darwin's work did create a new, volatile debate about the definition between man and animals, but it wasn't ground breaking to the point that the British unanimously mended their ways.  Was not Upton Sinclair's The Jungle written in 1906?  Very little change happens in such a short span of time.  It takes years to make any real process, in reforming an entire society's treatment of animals.  Plus, the point of The Origin of Species wasn't related to human compassion- it focused much more on the conflicts within human society.  Specifically, the Christian belief that the world was only a few thousand years old and unchanging.  I see Darwin's book as being related to a shift within our conceptions of religion and science as compared to a change towards animals.

Also, I found the anecdote taken from The Vegetarian Messenger about the child who killed his little brother to be rather far fetched.  During the era this was written, horrible stories of suffering were all the age in Victorian London.  It was commonplace to get penny pamphlets that told stories of girls suffering in work houses before being rescued by a male chauvinistic "prince charming."  In fact, I read a book this past summer called  Buried Alive which made the point that the traditional stories of people being buried alive came into popularity during this same time.  It seems the Victorians had a taste for the horrible, so I wound't be surprised if this "personal anecdote" was merely an urban legend put into print.

Overall, I find both papers hint at a dark side to Alice's behavior.  Though I never wanted to admit it to myself, she honestly has rather bad manners to the different people she meets on her journey through Wonderland.  I never see her show much compassion or empathy for the plight of others and even laughs at their misfortune.  I suppose she feels she is merely visiting a queer world.  Or maybe it's like a dream, where you act as you know you shouldn't, simply because it is a dream and no one is really harmed.  But for whatever reason she behaves so childishly and self-centered, I don't think the theme is ever strong enough to suggest she outright abuses the animals of wonderland.

Mediterranean Seafood

I've always been fascinated with Greek culture, mostly stemming from my interest in the mythology of the region.  So when we were let loose to discover a piece of artwork relating the connection between people and animals, I immediately headed towards the Mediterranean pottery section.  As luck would have it, I found an excellent example of humanity's relationship with creatures of the sea.

Originating somewhere around 340-320 BCE, this terra-cotta platter depicts in stunning detail the delicacies of coastal living in Greece.  Attributed to the workshop of Darius, this red-figure fish plate displays a squid, octopus, shellfish, and a flatfish.The curvature of the plate dips at the center into a sort of min-bowl.  Scholars believe it was designed to hold the sauce in which the seafood was dipped.  In fact, seafood was a sign of high class for the Ancient Greeks so the dishes were presented on the more ornate of platters, hence the scrupulous detail shown here.

Now enough about the historical significance, I'm much more interested in why the artist choose to depict his meal in such a way.  Because that's the main connection here: humans and their food source.  It's not a happy-go-lucky painting of medieval princesses seated in a forest with a unicorn.  It's a much older and accurate depiction of our history with creatures of the sea.  I'm not saying the ancients had respect for the Ocean-just look at the stories revolving around Poseidon.  It's just difficult to feel empathy for creatures that look so different from us mammals.

Yet, I get the feeling the artist didn't just see the animals on this plate as lacking in intelligence or emotion.  It struck me that all of the animals (minus the shellfish) are painted with their eyes staring back at the diner.  It's like they're watching themselves be consumed.  Is this a symbolic representation of reminding humans to be thankful for our meals?  Is it a gentle reminder to not forget that one life is lost to preserve another?  In any case, I find it intriguing that all the animals are intact as well.  It doesn't appear as if the octopus has been fried or the squid sauteed.  I assume part of the reason is the difficulty posed by painting the more abstract concept of what the sea creatures become- aka, our meal.  Of course, I don't actually know how the meal would have been prepared that long ago.

On the same vein of portrayal of the creatures, why is the shellfish merely a shell?  I wonder if the Ancient Greeks understood that shellfish are sentient beings like any other animal.  I know they didn't have scientific classifications like we do now but did they think shellfish were closer to plants, or animals, or in a completely separate category.  Just some idle curiosity.  However, I'm rather pleased that I found an example of a scallop shell.  The Greeks weren't a Christian population at the time, but perhaps they held some of the same associations as we do with the scallop shell.  I guess we could call this.....

food for thought.

Photos taken by me at the Blanton Art Museum

Science Shouldn't Mean Pain

I’m a scientist- or at least I want to be one.  To pursue a career in the medical field, I have to be trained in being understanding while pushing away the weight of the potential risks in a medical career.  But even a person of science shouldn’t be able to deny the horror of animal testing.  Having read my fair share of medical novels and articles, I found several ties to the last segment of Earthlings.

I guess I’ll start with the least horrendous.  It’s actually also the most fresh in my mind because it was just over this summer that I read the related book.  In case you’ve never heard of Robin Cook, he’s a MD that chose to write novels with the scientific knowledge he garnered from medical school.  My mom, having enjoyed his writing herself, gave me a copy of Chromosome 6 to pass the time on my down shifts at work.  The plot of the story focuses on the genetic manipulation of bonobos to create perfect organ donors for high-rolling clients.  But, as often happens, the science goes astray and the geneticist ends up creating a new genus of protohumans.  At least in this story, it all ends up with a positive spin.  The geneticist feels guilty for the inhumane use of his creations and destroys the lab: releasing the neanderthal-like humans into the wild forests of Equatorial Guinea.  However, real life is often not so bloodless and cheery.

http://www.homeyhome.info/2007_05_01_archive.html

Most scientific explorers of the past have committed atrocious acts, all in the name of discovery.  William Harvey, the man who discovered our  heart is what pumps blood through the circulation of our bodies, dissected both his father and sister after their deaths.  And towards animals, researchers can be even more heartless.  I recall reading in Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers how one Russian scientist used dogs in his experiment on tissue rejection.  Being a dog lover, I found it hard to stomach the sorts of operations he performed.  I’ll spare you the majority of his studies but there’s one in particular I feel obligated to share.  Animal testing isn’t all about drug trials or cancer research.  Some of it can be quite crude and bloody.  This particular scientist took the head and torso of a puppy and surgically connected it (while alive) to the chest of a full grown dog.  He essentially “wired” their blood circulation together, testing to see whether such a feat was possible.  I’m honestly not even sure what the point was of performing such an appalling experiment.  The dogs were most likely conscious throughout the procedure because anesthetic wasn’t very developed at the time and it could have jeopardized the results.  I’m just.... shocked.  The pointless suffering just for idle curiosity, how is that humane? How is it benevolent?  The study of medicine is supposed to to make the world a better place, not create more suffering.

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/dog-res-04.html

My last relation is one I made from personal research.  A few years ago, I became intensely interested in the history of World War 2 and actually wrote a story based in the 1930s-40s.  I wanted to have as many accurate details as possible and since a good portion was set in Auschwitz, I focused my research on the Nazi experiments and gathering of “scientific evidence” or racial in-equality.  I remember discovering that much of our knowledge about hypothermia is a result of the SS tests in death camps.  I hate to sound insensitive, but I’m glad we have the knowledge.  I just wish that we had obtained it another way.  But then I thought surely we’ve out-grown the need for such measures.  The world as a whole learned what humans are capable of to each other so haven’t we mended our ways since then?  I guess not, because in Earthlings there is a scene that depicts a hog being burned alive to test blistering and other bodily responses to heat extremes.  It’s a different temperature extreme, it’s a different kind of being, but it’s still the same idea.  What have we really learned in our past littered with bloodshed?  I hate to be a “Debbie Downer,” but it looks like not much.

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/090929-006-europe.html

No More Dead Dogs

"People pull their punches, refer to dogs' love with words such as loyalty, obedience, or even submissiveness, but it is love." (421)

http://blogs.psychsterdata.com/yjgm/2010/01/the-truth-about-cats-and-dogs-the-psychology-of-pet-preferences.html

I've seen such a reaction many times before.  People fear using the word "love" because that's all too much of a human emotion.  We are in the paradoxical position of wanting to believe our pets love and understand us, but denying that animals can understand things happening around them (read: slaughter houses).  I know personification is believed to be the transference of human qualities to objects or animals who we believe can't possibly feel like we do, but why?  Why do we assume emotions (I'm not talking about neural impulses like pain or pleasure, I mean the combination of physical sensation and thought) are a purely human characteristic?  There's no evidence to support that.  Animals feel affection just as we do. Some species, Ravens among them, mate for life and refuse to leave a dying family member.  They grieve.  Just as we feel pain at the loss of a person held dear, they know the pain of death.  Humanity is too vain in thinking we were gifted above all.  Sure, we have dexterous thumbs to create tools and reasoning capacity beyond other species, but that doesn't relate at all to the ability to feel.  Any pet owner can express how their animal responds to affection not on a primitive level, but with understanding and love.  Let's not be afraid to say so.

And to be honest, the loss of that love can tear up someone inside- regardless of species.

"Pay attention to me! I didn’t ask you to bring me into this house. You voluntarily decided to be my caretakers." (web http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/30209/web/Sana/Websites/P2/p2.htm)

Pet owners have a responsibility- to love and care for their animals.  Years of breeding and domestication have made many types of animals dependent on humans to provide certain types of care.  For some reason, we tend to forget that.  We think that it’s “ok” to just stop taking our dogs for walks or cleaning the fish bowl.  How does that even remotely make sense?  And what’s worse is the final abandonment.  How often have you heard of people releasing their pet rabbits or fish “into the wild”?  It’s a statement that completely lacks sense.  The rabbits we breed are not of the wild variety.  They have bright coats and soft fur and dulled reflexes.  They may have a few natural instincts left but not enough to keep them from being hit by a car or swooped up by a hawk.  A fish is little better off.  They are small, used to being fed synthetic food, and once again-brightly colored.  There’s no reason they should last any longer than a rabbit.  In reality, being “released” is just a euphemism for sending them to their death.  It is the greatest betrayal of a pet owner.  We, who assume we are all-powerful, take the weak cowardly way out of responsibility and push them off like they’re someone else’s problem.  I sometimes wonder if people should get licenses to become pet owners.  Then, maybe we could prevent some of the abuse, neglect, and abandonment these animals face.

http://www.humanesocietyofmarioncounty.com/index_files/page0006.htm

Always the Hero, Never the Perpetrator

I don't know if this is true of all cultures but I find in the American culture a prevalence in the belief that we are the world's police.  We play the hero and rescue third world countries from themselves or pronounce condemnation on the practices of other cultures because we deem them barbaric.  It's tragically funny, because we are so blind to our own misdeeds and atrocities.  We're excellent at pointing out the faults of others, but for ourselves we have no qualms.

"My theory is cos [sic] they know the enlightened west generally give dogs/cats the respect they deserve, and their backward societys [sic] are unwilling to catch up." (371)

This statement, taken from an article on the Eastern practice of eating dogs, only strengthens my point.  Look how quick we are to condemn are call them evil.  It's easy because they are a different culture we don't understand and because we don't have to bear any of the associated guilt.  It's even more astounding that the writer chose to bring in direct racism with the general idea that the East condones these practices simply because they know we don't like it.  How much more egotistical can we get?  It has nothing to do with Western culture at all!  It's just so much easier to demonize the enemy and force them to "clean up their act" than it is to take a look in the mirror and see our own sins.

http://eats.com/eats-editorials/foodie-news/culinary-halloween-costumes-20091030933/

"We all maintain a remarkable capacity to avoid hearing about atrocities committed by our own side, or by our own species, especially if those atrocities can be hidden from view." (396)

This is not only true of cruelty to animals, but of basic human rights as well.  If we can't see the process, it's so much easier to pretend like it doesn't exist.  In particular, I'm reminded of a book I read two years ago- King Leopold's Ghost.  It focused on the horrors perpetrated in the Belgium Congo, all in the name of "colonizing" the African continent.  In truth, it was a systematic destruction of both the land and the people who lived there.  Meanwhile, Europe simply turned a blind eye to the whole ordeal because the rubber products removed from the vast forests helped fuel their industrial revolution.  Sound familiar?  It's just like how we ignore the incredibly horrid sanitary conditions in the CAFOs because we benefit from the meat 'produced' there. But do we really?  The environmental impacts and possibility of anti-biotic resistant viruses are becoming a major concern- all for the comfort of a hamburger.

But I think that's a topic best explored in greater depth at another time.  The key message to be left from the reading on carnism is how easily we find escape methods, aka denial and repression, to lessen our guilt at the current farming practices.  And even when directly confronted with the issue, the reaction doesn't always last.

"Another example of confirmation bias is how the distress people feel upon witnessing footage of animals being slaughtered often "wears off" shortly thereafter." (386)

http://www.meemalee.com/2010/06/satans-face-on-plate-iceland.html

So much for the great human capacity for empathy.  I know that I am part of the problem as well.  I feel helpless and useless when I see video of cattle being drained of their life's blood in the most unsanitary and inhumane conditions.  But how can I transfer that to a visit to Kinsolving for dinner when salad and fruit alone can't sustain me?  I don't know that making the personal decision to "go vegetarian" will really make an impact in the grand scheme.  And, to be honest, it's uncomfortable.  I love grilled salmon, the traditional thanksgiving turkey, and even indulge in some steak from time to time.  Even while I'm aware of the shielding in my own head between pork and an actual pig, it's hard to fight.

As it is, I'm still searching for my own answers: how I can make a difference.  And the fact that I'm beginning to think about it in direct terms bodes well.  At least I'm actively engaged and not ignorant of the whole dialogue between food and the value of life.  So, I guess I've found a new subject to meditate on and help discover my own contribution to reconciling our eating habits with the unnecessary cruelty towards animals.