The Jungle Book 2

The story within How Fear Came about the relationship between animals and humans is by far my favorite thing presented in this course. Throughout this course we’ve seen that “the old order of things was changing” (897) and authors found ways to use this as an explanation of why the world is so, in this book we see changes that remained. It ties in so many of the events and ideas that affect the world today. It’s interesting to look at the effects that humans and animals have had on each other and still how a connection exists after everything. With all the crazy climate changes going on today and the situation presented in the story, the connection becomes even more visible because “we suffer together” (892).



It true that things like climate changes have an effect on everyone on this planet and it also becomes the one time when humans and animals acknowledge that they both must act and “no one could escape” (888). Within the story, we also witness the ignorance expressed by humans about threatening situations. Mowgli states “What is that to me” (889) setting himself apart from the others because of that difference that has been previously presented to him. However, with his ignorance he learns the story of the separation between different animals that became the separation between animal and man. It’s almost impossible to think that all animals once roamed the earth together but with many of the jungle laws presented, it makes it a reasonable idea. How wonderful it must have been to see several amazingly beautiful creatures together.




However, all good things must end, in this case the blame is placed on the Tiger who made the animals suspicious of each other and of the dangers they might bring. The change all took place with the want of meat “the smell of blood made us foolish” (893). From there death and fear seemed to run ramped in the jungle and the introduction of mankind only made things worse as he became the thing most feared by animals. Man however, is not solely responsible, the tiger made him dreadfully dangerous “Thou has taught Man to kill, and he is not a slow learner” (895). The separation was created by both animals and beast as well as between different animals and that still survives today. What would the world have been like if the Tiger would have never killed the buck and the encounter between man and tiger would not have produce fear. Would it be the case that the reality that we all suffer together stand out and be a priority concern when things go wrong. “Earth, people, and food were all one “(898).

The Jungle Book

Having only ever thought of The Jungle Book as a Disney movie, I was interested in seeing the differences between the film and the book. However, I’ve never seen the movie so that won’t really help for this discussion board. The book did however get me interested in the movie; I’d like to see how this book was portrayed to kids. I always see Disney movies as being deceptive to children, they mess up the true story and only focus on princesses finding their princes and living happily ever after as if that’s all there is to life. I’m sure that they took the book and made it happier for children when the book is really much more. I, myself, don’t really understand the message of the book. At first I thought it dealt with the connection and similarities between humans and animals but it slowly became about the differences and the separation between the two. Throughout the book, we see the internal battle that Mowgli faces as he tries to be a part of the wolf but knowing that he is different, he is man and using this to his advantage when he’s in harm’s way. This concept I feel would be too hard for children to grasp but it is truly one of the things that made the chapter amazing for me, it shows the battle that all humans should face when thinking of harming animals. I thought the description of little Mowgli reflected what men think of themselves, the ‘man- cub’ “looks up and is not afraid” (866). As humans, we think we rule over all animals because we don’t fear them we have ways of making them fear us as Mowgli find out when using the ‘Red Flower’ (fire) to save his life. The description of the wolf pack as ‘free people’ gave them a different light, they weren’t just animals, and they lived by the jungle law and held council meetings that seem so democratic. Baloo and Bagheeras connection with Mowgli is fascinating even being called abrother. “in all but blood” (873) showing again the relationship between man and animal. I had no idea that within the jungle book different stories existed, I always thought that it would all revolve around the life of Mowgli in the jungle but I was wrong. The chapter entitled The White Seal is completely different. The brave little white seal named Kotick is an interesting character.He never is settled with what is infront of him and always wants to know more. The whole story is a great example of this and it starts with humans choosing which seals to take to the ‘killing- pens’ where they would be turned into sealskin jackets. “Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of seals watched them being driven, but they went on playing just the same” (881). The response of all the seals made me think of the similarities between this and the holocaust. It’s been said several times that many would just sit back and act ignorant to the fact that their neighbors were being taken to concentration camps, so did the seals in the story. Even when told what was going on the seals didn’t care stating that it wasn’t their concern and that he shouldn’t have followed them.Kotick is the only one that acted knowing that the location that they lived in was not safe he explored for several seasons for a different, safer area. After finding it he is still made fun of and not trusted and it is only through violence that his advice is accepted. I think it’s really sad but true that all animals only react immediately when they are faced with violence.

Peaceable Kingdom

The two presented in the course have been completely opposite of one another in what they show and how they display the information. While having been terrified when viewing Earthlings, I was expecting a similar reaction to Peaceable Kingdom. However, there can be no comparison made between the two they are extremely different. While Earthlings was gruesome and made me feel horrible about how I help in the pain obtained by animals, Peaceable Kingdom showed the nicer side of the fight for animal’s rights. There has always been a relationship between humans and animals but somewhere along the way the concern for one another disappeared. It was crazy to see this farmer not really think of profit but only of the animal’s well being, that is not common in today’s world especially in a country such as America. For him to sit in front of a camera and show emotions when talking about his encounter with dead animals hanging from trees and his connection with his cow made me wonder why and how factory farms exists. In Earthlings, the concern for animals by humans was never shown, it was always just a want to hurt them and end their lives. I don’t understand how these movies are so different when covering the same topic. It makes me wonder about the reality of the situation and which is the side to believe. I mean while I know that cruel things do happen to animals how often they occur is Earthlings only taking a bit of footage and manipulating the audience to think that this is always the case. These movies of course play into the course and our thoughts on the fight for animals rights. I believe that these films were a good balance to the semester’s text giving two different sides of the story. Having seen several PETA videos on the side and having been extremely effected by Earthlings I would never think something as calming as Peaceable Kingdom would also have an effect of me, it would give me hope that things could and have started to change slowly. It also shows that the fight for animals doesn’t solely rely on pictures of cruelty but it also depends on the sentiments of humans towards animals and whether they choose to support the problem or find a solution.

Black Beauty 3

After having read Black Beauty, I clearly see a connection between slavery and horses. In the earlier chapters of this section we are introduced to the world of horse fairs, in hearing the description of the day’s events I can’t help but think of the slave auctions that took place in colonial America. Like the inspection of horses, slaves were also thoroughly inspected. After being bought horses like slaves were to “be used up; that is what they are doing, whipping and working with never one thought of what I suffer; they paid for me, and must get it out of me” (pg 170 ch 40). It amazes me that this can encompass the treatment of slaves and horses. Slaves were truly treated like animals and they were considered only objects to white people. Some of the statements made a few chapters later by a war horse also help show the similarities between the journeys to a land of cruelty. For a military horse his experience in times of war almost sounds like a firsthand account description from slaves about their thoughts on America, “the country we had come to was very different from our own and that we had many hardships to endure besides the fighting” (pg 140 ch 34). So much around both slaves and horses changed because the conditions that surrounded them were forced upon them by those that now held control over them. As Black Beauty talks about all the pains of being a cab horse he again emphasizes the similarities in little ways.



He and other characters in the book make several different comments about the conditions of animals. In one comment Beauty talks about his commitment to his work “I did my best, as I always had done, in spite of cruelty and injustice” (pg 203 ch 47). In another, the sentiments shared about not being able to have control of yourself and having someone else ruling over you “for ‘tis a poor thing not to be one’s own master” (pg 185 ch 44). Another comment made which is never really related to slaves but I think makes sense. “To be punished and abused when I was doing my very best was so hard, it took the heart out of me” (pg 198 ch 46). It is rarely talked about but it is most likely true that slaves did all they possibly could with the conditions they were given. It has been said that slaves were really proud of their work but we never stop to think that they were never recognized for the good they did and only abused upon a mess up. We are also shown the perspective of owners. “I say ‘tis a mockery to tell a man that he must not overwork his horse, for when a beast is downright tired there’s nothing but the whip that will keep his legs agoing- you can’t help yourself- you must put your wife and children before the horse, the masters must look to that, we can’t” (pg 167 ch 39). I know this sounds wrong because its justifying the ill treatment of animals but it make sense, if you’re working for a living and depending on the assistance of another you will go to whatever limit to get the task accomplished even if it means inflicting pain.

Black Beauty 2

At the end of the last section, the separation of what seemed to be a happy little family was certain but to Black Beauty it was no longer about the location or his treatment but about those that surrounded him. The separation however was eased by having Ginger around. After being injured Black Beauty was put to rest and thought that “though I enjoyed the liberty and the sweet grass, yet I had been so long used to society that I felt very lonely” (pg 108, ch 27). Having been use to others for so long it was awkward to be alone, the loneliness soon ended when Ginger who had been injured as well joined him. “Here we are- ruined in the prime of our youth and strength- you by a drunkard, and I by a fool; It is very hard” (pg 109, ch 27).



After this accident, the family was finally fully separated. Black Beauty again went to a new home where he didn’t feel badly treated but yet again alone, “although in many ways I was well treated, I had no friend” (pg 93, ch 23). Throughout the book I notice more the similarities between humans and animals and though people might not believe these similarities exist it becomes obvious once Black Beauty is separated from his friends. The emotions that most humans would encounter upon isolation and separation appear to be felt by Beauty as well. A lot of the writing within the book actually reflect a strong resemblance between humans and horses. For example, at one point in the book they discuss the display of uneasiness, “it is just as unnatural for horses as for men to foam at the mouth; it is a sure sign of some discomfort, and should be attended to” (pg 93, ch 23). In another section, again like in the first third of the book they compare horses to boys, “spoiling a horse and letting him get into bad habits was just as cruel as spoiling a child, and both had to suffer for it afterwards” (pg 112, ch 28). Much of this chapter is also spent talking about the lack of opportunity for the horse to state what they feel is the relationship between human and animals. “What were horses made for, if not to drag people up- hill” (pg 115, ch 29).



While humans see the horses as a form of transportation, they never really consider them having any limits and it really upsets the horses that their health is never really taken into consideration. Black Beauty lets it be known that “I could not complain, nor make known my wants” (pg 123, ch 30). I feel that the communication barrier is clear to both humans and animals and it makes it uncomfortable to realize that nothing can be done and it almost disempowers both parties but since humans are concerned only about themselves it effects them less.

Black Beauty 1

Through the eyes of Black Beauty we are given different sides of the relationship between horse and men. From his mother’s perspectives it is up to the horse to decide how the relationship between the two will work out. “She told me the better I behaved, the better I should be treated, and that it was wisest always to do my best to please my master” (pg 13, ch 3). This interpretation of the relationship gives power to the horse who decides his own path but it also doesn’t account for the humans treatment of the animal and the effects that they might have on the horses behavior. “…there are a great many kinds of men; there are good, thoughtful men like our master, bad, cruel men, who never ought to have a horse or dog to call their own” (pg 13, ch 3). This perspective is given by Beauty’s mom, Ginger, Merrylegs, and Sir Oliver. While Black Beauty thinks nothing nut the best of his original master saying that “he spoke as kindly to us as he did to his little children” (pg 4, ch1) he also sees their ignorant side when he sees their hunt of a hare. His mom’s interpretation of the situation puts into perspective the ignorance of man and disregard of everything. “I never yet could make out why men are so fond of this sport; they often hurt themselves, often spoil good horses, and tear up the fields, and all for a hare or fox, or a stag, that they could get more easily some other way; but we are only horses and don’t know” (8, Ch 2) She can’t put the pieces together to get a clear picture of what men are and why they do some things and blames her differences for the confusion. Upon arriving at his new home he again was treated kindly and had his care taker talk to him a “great deal; of course I did not understand all he said, but I learned more and more to know what he meant, and what he wanted me to do” (pg 20, ch 4). He seems to be blessed in being treated fairly well but is able to see the harm that humans can do through the stories of his new friends.



Ginger shares the story of her upbringing. She states that “the first experience I had of men’s kindness; it was all force; they did not give me a chance to know what they wanted” (pg 25, ch 7). From her earliest encounters she’s learned to see men as her enemies and has carried this into her actions when interacting with men. She also shares that men realize that if a horse does wrong it is only the fault of the care taker’s, as an old owner of hers said “ ‘a bad-tempered man will never make a good-tempered horse’” (pg 27, ch 7). Sir Oliver also shares his past experiences to show that not all humans are good, in his case his tail was cut off as a fashion statement. This caused Sir Oliver to be unable to swat the flies on his legs and sides.



He also shares that the same thing happens to puppies that get their tails and ears cut as part of a fashion style to make them appear nicer. He asks why don’t do that to their own kids? “What right have they to torment and disfigure God’s creatures?” (pg 39 ch 10) Merrylegs talks about the gender differences in humanity stating that boys like horses need to be broken in and taught right from wrong. This reflects the similarities and almost a battle over power of who should be training and be trained. Throughout I feel that all the characters realize the importance of balance within the relationship in order for be one that continues to work for both parties involved for the most part.

Animal Research Center

The beginning of animal experimentation stems from a belief that all earthlings are alike. The differences however became apparent when Belgian doctor Andreas Vesalius challenged and disproved anatomical discoveries previously made by Roman physician Galen who worked on animals and perceived his finding applicable to humans as well.



Figure 1: Roman physician and philosopher Galen

French philosopher Rene Descartes then used Vesalius findings to support the idea that animals were “unthinking unfeeling machines.” This allowed for the continuation of animal experimentation without remorse of harming a creature similar to humans. However, French philosopher François- Marie Arouet de Voltaire disputed Descartes point by stating that vivisection actually “uncovered organs of feelings in animals” proving that they weren’t machines. Two different sides on the topic of animal experimentation quickly developed. British philosopher Jeremy Bentham complicated the matter even more by posing a different question. “The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?”
Throughout the course, we’ve been challenged to not only stand outside ourselves and see how our reactions have affected other earthlings but to try and place ourselves in the position of those animals that are so often mistreated in order for the human race to achieve a medical or scientific advance of some sort. But are the experiments performed considered essential for the betterment of mankind, is the use of animals even really necessary? These questions constantly crossed my mind throughout the course especially when considering that we, as humans, try to separate ourselves from animals, why is it then that we try to find out about ourselves through the use of creatures that are different from us. Animal research is an established practice done all over the world that many believe is beneficial to advancements however it is also a horrible experience for the animals partaking in the procedures.
During the nineteenth century, a new found awareness of animal welfare led to organized efforts in the fight against animal cruelty around the world. In December 1875, Frances Power Cobbe, founded the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection (later, the Victorian Street Society), the first organization to campaign against animal experiments.



Figure 2: Founder of several animal rights organizations, Frances Power Cobbe

Over the years that followed, various animals’ rights groups would continue to form and try to outlaw cruelty practices, these groups would help pass several pieces of legislation including the Pure Food and Drug Act that passed in 1906, after a series of injuries, sicknesses, and deaths. The extensive use of animals in human products caused several side effects. Doctors lobbied for a crack down on drugs and personal products sold that contained any by- product from animals. It wasn’t until after the death of nearly 100 people that enough pressure was put on Congress to strengthen the original PFDA. In 1938, the Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act passed stating that animal testing would be a requirement for all products. As time progressed the testing requirements were “gradually amended to include different species and to last for longer time periods.”
In the 1960s the movement resurged when Pepper, a Dalmatian, disappeared from a family’s backyard. The discovery was made shortly after that she had been sold to a hospital that conducted an experiment on her and euthanized her. People wanted new legislation that protected animals and would be monitored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) were brought forth. Congress passed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 making it necessary for animal dealers to be licensed and laboratories regulatory. In 1970 the act was renamed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and covered all warm- blooded animals, a year later rats, mice, and birds were excluded. In 1985, the act was amended again to require that researchers minimize the animal’s pain whenever possible through the use of anesthesia, pain killers, and humane euthanasia. In 1990, the act was extended to farm animals.





Figure 3: A book cover on Ryder's speciesism idea

Around the same time Richard Ryder, coined the term speciesism referring to a “widely held belief that the human species is inherently superior to other species and so has rights or privileges that are denied to other sentient animals […] can also be used to describe the oppressive behaviour, cruelty, prejudice and discrimination that are associated with such a belief.” Ryder, after years of inflicting pain on animals through research, began to work against the evils done to animals by humans. Like many others before and after him, he used his sympathetic imagination to understand the animal’s experience. We too must use our sympathetic imagination. We must reflect on the fact that we are alike; we are harming a part of ourselves by inflicting pain on animals for research purposes. We are taking part in passive cruelty- “the observation of a cruel act in which the observer neither participates nor intervenes.” We must take action to protect all earthlings.
While a good deal of work has already been done regarding the treatment of animals there is still so much left to do. We realistically cannot get rid of all animal cruelty at once; smaller steps must first be taken. The implementation and enforcement of laws has already begun with the help of older generations; now, we must ask ourselves what will we do. The small group of dedicated young men and women in class can have a major impact on the treatment of animals right here on campus by getting students informed about the research lab apart of UT and the things we can do to get rid of it.



Figure 4: Map for location the ARC

Built in the summer of 1977, the Animal Resource Center was originally a 50,000 square foot facility capable of housing 10-15,000 laboratory animals per year. Claiming to be "Seeking progress for all species through research" and located on 2701 Speedway, the “centralized facility permits the most efficient and up-to-date environmental control for sanitation and animal health monitoring. It also has access to a diagnostic laboratory, two complete animal surgery suites, several darkrooms, controlled environment rooms, and a necropsy room.” Users of the center include faculty and students from several departments on campus. Since its construction, a 20,000 square foot extension was added. Fifteen part and full-time animal attendants and technicians, an administrative associate, a facilities manager, compliance and training manager, and the director whose specialty is lab animal medicine assist researchers in their tasks.





Figure 5: Experimenter giving animals drugs

The activities performed in the center are pre-approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee whose mission is to “oversee the provisions for the care and well-being of animals used for research and educational purposes at The University of Texas at Austin. The IACUC is also committed to serving the public by ensuring conformance to all legal and ethical standards regarding the use of animals in research.” While not much is made public about the projects conducted and several rules and guidelines are in place for researchers to follow, dreadful things still take place daily. Information on previous and ongoing projects is hard to find, the secrecy the surrounds the center makes me wonder why so much privacy is necessary, even getting into the location seems difficult. The facility is not open to everyone, to get into the center you must first fill and print out the ARC record, have it signed by your PI (Principle Investigator), obtain a proximity card from the ID center located in the FAC ID, and take printed form and ID to ARC front office to get card activated. “ALL visitors must register at the front desk of the ARC prior to entering the animal care areas.” It is almost impossible to go into the center and comfortably walk around much less inquire about anything within the center.
A limited amount of information regarding the ARC is posted online and few even know that the location exists on campus. These two factors lead me to believe that UT officials are aware of the uproar that would occur if students knew. To get the ARC, and the atrocities that go on inside of the building, removed from campus we must first inform individuals about the situation. School officials have intentionally or unintentionally kept the center out of sight and mind for students, even for those who pass it every day after all there is no sign with its name brightly displayed as is with other buildings on campus. The next step would be to approach organizations geared towards protecting animal’s rights, they would be a great core group to start spreading the word about trying to remove the ARC from campus. With these organizations we would start a petition that we can later take to school officials. The plan of action from there would be to host a rally in the West Mall and further distribute information. This would help reach all the people not involved in animal rights organizations and encourage more people to sign a petition. We would also recruit people who have been inside the ARC either as observers or as assistants in projects to testify about their experiences.



Figure 6: Along with several other students we would talk to people in the Main and West Malls about the ARC

Being that it is already April, there is not enough time to continue all the way through our plan we will need to wait for the upcoming semester and in the mean time focus on keeping students motivated about getting rid of the ARC. It would give the core group time to research and find out as much information as possible about the center and the steps necessary to get it removed from campus. Holding social gatherings during the summer break would allow us to keep people interested in our plans for the semester while keeping them up to date on what we are learning. At the beginning of the fall semester, we will make sure that all the information needed is obtained and again hold a rally in the West Mall. We would also push for The Daily Texan to write an article on the ARC. They would be able to do research and develop an expose story that would make anyone who picks the paper up aware of our intentions. Also, they would also have access to school officials that could be interrogated about the projects that take place in the ARC. It can be assumed that school officials would be reluctant to talk about the matter, this would then cause more support within the community and help enable a stronger voice against the ARC.





Figure 7: We must always think of the reprocussions of our actions

A protest rally, outside of the center would be the next step. It would show the complete disapproval and encourage those who work there to be a bit embarrassed. In mid October, we would talk to SG officials to see if anything could be done about presenting a piece of legislation to the campus which would call for the removal of the ARC which could then be taken to President Powers.



Figure 8: The UT tower should be a sign of power not of cruelty

Considered one of the top schools of the nations, UT is thought of as an example to many. To help lead the fight against animal cruelty would encourage other campuses to do the same and cause students to become informed about the laboratories and experiments that take place on their campus. Just looking out for animals can make a big change “In everything you do, try to educate others, stop cruel behaviors, and bring about a revolution in human consciousness.” We must stop being selfish and consider those that are harmed daily for no other reason than to answer a question. They are not at fault for the lack of answers and should be treated with more respect. With a few simple changes in ourselves, afterwards our community, and later the world all earthlings can live a peaceful life never worrying of any harm coming their way as many animals who live in fear about being abducted do today. “Animals, as part of God’s creation, have rights which must be respected. It behoves us always to be sensitive to their needs and to the reality of their pain."

WORD COUNT WITH QUOTES: 1,980
WORD COUNT WITHOUT QUOTES: 1,709

Bibliography

“Animal Facility Access Policy .” UTARC. http://www.utexas.edu/research/arc/facilities/access.pdf (accessed March 29, 2010).

Bentham, Jeremy. “The Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789, Chapter VII, Section 1 .” In E379NF Animal Humanities VOlume 2 . N.p.: n.p., n.d.

“General Information .” UTARC . http://www.utexas.edu/research/arc/facilities/facility.htm (accessed March 29, 2010).

“IACUC Mission Statement.” Office of Research Support . http://www.utexas.edu/research/rsc/iacuc/about.html (accessed March 29, 2010).

Linzey, Andrew. Why Animal Suffering Matters: Philosophy, Theology, and Practical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Merz-Perez, Linda, and Kathleen M. Heide. Animal Cruelty: Pathway to Violence against People . Walnut Creek : Altamira Press , 2004.

“The PETA Practical Guide to Animal Rights .” In E379NF Animal Humanities Volume 1. N.p.: n.p., n.d.

“Research Animals- History .” Libraby Index . http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2180/Research-Animals-HISTORY.html (accessed March 29, 2010).

“Speciesism .” Richard Ryder . http://www.richardryder.co.uk/speciesism.html (accessed March 29, 2010).

Figure 1: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/hommedia.ashx?id=10957&size=Small

Figure 2: http://www.navs.org.uk/media/uploads/normal_pages/abyy2t_francespowercobbe.jpg

Figure 3: http://pense-bete.org/references/imgs/couv-Joan_Dunayer-Speciesism.jpg

Figure 4: http://www.utexas.edu/maps/main/buildings/arc.html

Figure 5: http://www.osaka-med.ac.jp/Global/information_about_omc/laboratory_animal_center.jpg

Figure 6: http://txtell.lib.utexas.edu/stories/media/m0002-3.jpg

Figure 7: http://www.shac.net/news/2009/February/images/28b.jpg

Figure 8: http://collegeprowler.com/images/standard/1595/the-tower-at-ut.jpeg

Asian Religions

I was intrigued in seeing the reasoning of others about the environments constant harm due to the human race- the idea that money is a primary reason behind this big mess is an obvious answer to the problem, however I would’ve never thought of religion as a secondary problem. It blew me away that this could be seen as the answer. While the idea was making my head spin, I continued to read and came upon a comment that stated “landscapes that appear to be most free of human culture turn out, on closer inspection, to be its product” (810). After much thought, I understand and believe that this is true. Even the most natural setting have all been in the hands of man for several years and have been used as sources of income for one thing or another, take for example the Grand Canyon and any National Park the beauty of these places remains only in an effort to preserve what once was for profit.



As I continued to read I began to wonder more about our ideas about the things we do daily and how they affect our planet. I realized how so much has changed even in cultures religious practices stem back centuries ago. For example, Indigenous people once had “respect for the sources of food, clothing, and shelter that nature provides” (812). Appreciation of the creator and the natural spiritual forces were at the heart of every tradition and now it’s the greed for money that seems to support a lifestyle different from what it once was. Getting an inside perspective into the Jainism religion really made me think.

alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5459364350857381362" />


Being raised in the American culture, I know that the teachings apart of Jainism are far from anything I learned as a child. What is portrayed as the essential rule of the religion goes against what we are taught about standing up for ourselves, killing the bugs that land on you during little league games instead of just running away. It makes it almost seem impossible for Americans to practice Jainism, come to think about it I find it hard to see how anyone could around the world especially in Asian societies could practice this religion. Asian countries are known for their pollution problems due to their mass production in which so many people are not necessarily being cared for. The articles talk about Ahimsa as if a person could truly exists never harming anything, putting others before themselves, and turning the other cheek. I honestly think that in this day and age, its almost impossible with all the chaos its hard to be upset even when its at something insignificant. “In the regeneration and divinization of man, the first step is to eliminate his beastly nature. The predominant trait in beast is cruelty. Therefore, wise sages prescribe Ahimsa (non- injury). This is the most effective master- method to counteract and eradicate completely the brutal, cruel Pasu- Svabhava (bestial nature) in man. Practice of Ahimsa develops love” (815). The practice in Jainism reflects an idea of a hopeful future without any further pain inflicted on any living thing. The article finally stated what I believed all along “you cannot find a single non-injurer in the world. You have to destroy life in order to live. It is physically impossible for you to obey the law of non destruction of life, because the phagocytes of your blood also are destroying millions of dangerous intrusive spirilla, bacteria and germs” (818).



While the practice of Jainism is very influential, its also really idealistic. Religion and money are two extreme factors on the environmental problems; I don’t feel that they are the only ones however. “In addition to their knowledge, technology, ideals, and God, they must above all search deeper for the source of life, the depth of personality and the common origin of human culture in order to arrive at a true unity with mankind” (833).

Berger

In the section from John Berger’s About Looking we learn that while ‘all creatures, including man, originally lived together in fellowship in one camp” (797) the effects of corporate capitalism have broken “every tradition which has previously mediated between man and nature” (795). Everything that humans have done to better themselves and prove superior to the other creatures of Earth have negatively affected other creatures, just look all around at the constant construction that destroys the homes of so many animals, the pollution that ruins the food and water sources of animals, and our constant obsession with the items produced by the death of these animals including food and clothing.



But that wasn’t always the case. “Animals first entered the imagination as messengers and promises” (795), the bible shows several examples in which animals are used as symbolic messages to humans. For example the dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. However, not all examples in the bible show kindness to animals. In book 9 of Genesis in the Kings James Version it states that after God has given Noah and his sons the right to rule over the animals he also says that “the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast” (809). While this statement is not intended to be negative it reflects the idea of superiority of humans to animals which has caused much suffering to Earth’s creatures. “



"'Tis by the same vanity of imagination that he equals himself to God, attributes to himself divine qualities, withdraws and separates himself from the crowd of other creatures, cuts out the shares of the animals, his fellows and companions, and distributes to them portions of faculties and force, as himself thinks fit” (835). Man took what God told him and overtime has used his power for evil more than good because there is no one there to stop him. However, there is much proof in that shows that there exists a vast number of similarities in comparison with the differences. “Animals are born, are sentient and are mortal. In these things they resemble man” (795), so much of how all earthlings are created shows that a closer relationship between humans and animals. Aristotle himself “declared that human beings and animals share a common ‘sensitive’ soul” (801) making them both able to experience emotions. The only barrier that exists is that of language but while humans continuously state that animals cannot understand we must ask ourselves if it isn’t man whose “lacked the capacity to speak with animals” (796). With that being said we must also “determine where the fault lies that we understand not one another- for we understand them no more than they do us; and by the same reason they may think us to be beasts as we think them” (835). The interesting concept that develops of the misunderstanding of one another has also allowed The representation of animals over time has varied. “They were subjected and worshipped, bred and sacrificed” (796).



However, the only thing that has in my opinion remained constant is the human infatuation with the power “ascribed to the animal, comparable with human power but never coinciding with it” (795).

Alice in Wonderland in IMAX 3D

After reading Alice in Wonderland and having viewed the movie I realize that it would have been satisfactory to evaluate the movie based solely on the books read for class. Because the book allows for your imagination to go wild in visualizing the beloved characters I found the constraints and stereotypical portrayals of the movie didn’t allow for the story to really come alive to me. I realize it isn’t really a remake; it’s more like a sequel that gave a different view of the books characters. Tim Burton is a great director who always takes movies a little bit closer to the dark side but I’m not really sure what his intentions were with this movie since I feel that most of the time the characters end up making fun of themselves and each other. Several instances of animal cruelty appeared throughout the movie, nothing really changed much from the book.



Like in the book the Red Queen is cruel and gets joy from inflicting pain on the creatures around her. She was exactly what I expected: needy and greedy with a low self esteem that was hidden by an oppressive attitude that made those around her pretend to be her friends.



One of the most memorable scenes is that of Alice playing croquet with the Queen using hedgehogs as balls and flamingos as a club. In the book, Alice doesn’t appear to have any concern for the animals while in the movie she actually doesn’t participate in the game itself and instead helps free the hedgehog before growing and being renamed ‘Uhm’ and becoming a guest of the Queens. The Queen then uses a pig as a stool and has monkeys hold up a table top in which Alice is to sit on. I think of this as another level for the Queen, she doesn’t only mistreat animals but she also treats them as objects in her world and not as living creatures.



Another scene in the movie in which the Queen is on the balcony also shows the animals struggling to maintain the furniture’s location in fear of the Queen’s wrath. While Alice appears to be a threat to animals in the book in the movie she is portrayed almost as an activist for the rights of animals since she is constantly seems to help animals. In one scene she returns a stolen e eye to a creature that she once feared and goes against the dormouse that had it as a trophy, thinking that it is the best option.




The most interesting character was the White Queen, while appearing only a few times in the film she plays an important role in Alice’s life. Because it is necessary for the Jabberwock to be defeated, she pushes Alice to do it since she has take a vow not to hurt any living creature. However, I feel that though she isn’t the one that has caused creatures its life she has conspired against it and helped end its life. I felt that though she was portrayed as the nicer, she was very deceptive in her actions. Besides asking Alice to end the life of a creature because she herself couldn’t she also held a lot of power over all animals.



She almost seemed like a puppet master having the puppets do her work for her. These are only a few instances that I felt were important in both the book and movie. I focused on events involving animal cruelty not only because that is what the course covers but because the rest of the movie wasn’t that entertaining, I didn’t enjoy the love story developed between Alice and the Mad Hatter or the story of Alice in the real world.

Panel Discussion at AT&T Conference Center

In attending the animal panel at the AT&T Conference Center, I heard three very different perspectives on the topic of the treatment of animals by humans in several perspectives. The first speaker, who clearly stated that his topic was furthest from the panel topic, was Mr. Thomas Prasch. His part of the discussion covered a book rarely talked about from Darwin on the relation of animals and humans through the expression of behavior.



One of the key points of his argument shed light not only on the relation of animals and humans but on the similarity between races. He talks about how it is the cultural differences that cause a divide and not really biological differences. Most of his talk was read off his paper, and since I had previously read the paper I was annoyed and bored. I believe he could’ve made really good connections and use his paper to defend animal’s rights and make a case against animal cruelty but his disappointment in not being able to participate in the Darwin panel made him not want to be really active in any panel.




The second speaker, Professor Bump covered his favorite topic of discussion- the Alice in Wonderland books. He showed instance in the book and the movie in which the characters are portrayed with constant changing views towards animals. Some of the characters, especially Alice throughout the book seem to portray aspects of animal cruelty. I think one of the greatest topics of discussion was brought up by Dolphin’s question which led to discussing the differences between the White and Red Queens.



While the White Queen states that she does not harm animals she has no problem asking Alice to do the dirty work for her. The Red Queen openly expresses her dislike of animals; she is honest about her intentions and does most of the dirty work herself. I really liked looking at the differences in the movie and the books. The last person to talk was Professor Styles, I felt as if she chose to really use her time and talk about everything she wanted to get across about her paper.





Her paper discussed the book Dracula and the significance of vivisection. She also makes the comparison between Dracula’s obsession and necessity of human blood with that of humans need for animals through the use of a food chain system that seems to develop in which Dracula is at the top. I really enjoyed her power point presentation that summarized all the main points of her paper and I loved hearing questions from audience members. It all went by a little too fast, most of the time the presentations seemed rush which I don’t think allowed for me to really enjoy the conversation as I felt a little lost at times.

Earthlings 2

Throughout this video I’ve asked myself several different questions but now that I’ve seen it all I can’t help but think specifically of one thing: how did all these practices develop. I’ve seen several different ‘tricks’ that men do to animals to continuously dishearten them as they lead them to their deaths, I wonder why people think it necessary to do this, how sadistic must the people who do these acts to animals be. The animals intended for food sources are forced to watch the suffering of their fellow animals. I wondered how this affects the flavor of the meat obtained from some animals, I would think that the cow would be tense and make the meat harder and lower the quality of the product. Other animals killed for their fur go crazy in their cages before they are suffer through anal electrocution in order to become expensive fur coats. Choosing the least expensive ways to get the fur off of these beautiful animals means that at times they might feel the skinning procedure and suffer the final moments of their lives.




The images of the cows too weak to stand make me think of all the images of Jews in concentration camps leaning against each other for support. The actions that those men did to the cows in order to get them to stand or move disgusted me. They intentionally inflicted pain on the animals knowing that they would get an adrenaline rush and then be able to continue on the march to their deaths. What made my stomach turn was the scene in which the men took chili pepper and put it in the eye of the animal, how sadistic is this seriously the animal is not only on his way to die but he must suffer his whole way there.



Not only do humans who fulfill these acts hurt the animals but in the occasion of obtaining leather they also lie to other humans. “Thousands of India cows are slaughtered each week for their skins, purchased from poor families in parts of rural India who sell them only after the assurance that the animals will live out their lives on farms” (582). While this is deceitful by the people who end up killing these cows I also don’t believe that the people are really that naïve. They understand what is going on, they’ve probably heard about everything that happens to animals in order for them to be used as food or clothing but the limited resources that they have pressure them into deceiving themselves about the possibility of their animals being slaughtered. In the labor of killing animals I believe deception must exists, you deceive those who eat the meat about how it is produce, you deceive the animals thinking they are in good care since they are fed several times and surrounded by their peers, you deceive yourself if you participate in the acts of killing believing that the practices are ethical. The death of animals is not the only way that humans have used in order to inflict pain on animals.



In rodeos around the world, the roping of animals which “involves throwing a rope around the neck of a frightened animal running full speed, jerking the poor creature to a halt, and slamming him or her on the ground” causes seriously irreversible damage to the bodies of the animals. Upon being pulled they hit the floor with the no cushion and risk possibly damaging bones and organs that will be left untreated. Elephants in circuses are yeld at, hit, poked, and tied with chains by their ankles throughout their life. These massive animals are broken down with such horrific practices that it isn’t hard to see why they have retaliated in the past.



I would have never looked at things in this perspective and I can’ help but know that I wouldn’t want my younger siblings to see it in this perspective making me wonder if I am part of the problem.

Sexism and Derrida

The comparison presented in the readings of speciesism and sexism doesn’t cease to amaze me. I’ve always found that the ‘isms’ were all similar in the sense that they were against an ‘other’ but through this reading and the course, I’ve come to think of each ‘ism’ promoting the others. In looking at just women and animals, I see that “many women adopt the very attitudes which are oppressing them” (789). Women definitely treat animals different than they would other humans; I think of the annoyance at insects and sometimes at pets displayed by women in my childhood and see the same treatment inflicted by men who believe themselves to be superior. I think of our culture which promotes the use of derogatory terms to people of different color and to women, how many times a day do we hear in music that a woman is a ‘bitch.’



“Applying images of denigrated nonhuman species to women labels women inferior and available for abuse” (785). The acceptance of negative metaphors between animals and women allows for a dehumanization to takes place and permits men to do as they please with women, in the past the same has occurred when white men considered African Americans different and treated them like they would other animals. Most metaphors that reference women as animals are negative and ironic in the ways the animals are perceived. Animals don’t often share the features associated to the derogatory term used against women for example, ‘bitch’ is used to refer to women who are thought of as “malice and selfish” but dogs are usually thought of as “loving and eager to please” (787). Why the association is made in a negative perspective and not a positive one not only harms the reputation of the creatures bit further allows for a separation of good and evil to be made between the oppressed and the oppressors. I’ve also begun to truly understand the importance of words and how “language fosters exploitation and abuse” (788). The terminology used against women and animal allows for the differences to appear larger than they are and therefore permitting the mistreatment since they are different.



“When used to denote other species only, animal falsely removes humans from animal kind” ( 789).After years of reoccurring events in which a group of people have gathered and stood up to fight for those who were once unable to do it for themselves it seems as if we’ve gotten nowhere since it continues to happen the only difference is the group that’s being targeted. “To think the war we find ourselves waging is not only a duty, a responsibility, an obligation, it is also a necessity a constraint that, like it or not directly or indirectly, everyone is held to” (723).

Animal Research

Dissections and vivisections have been performed on animals and humans since the time of ancient Greeks and Romans. While prohibited by various governments and frowned upon by Catholic Church officials, these acts took place for scientific and medical purposes. Galen made anatomical discoveries using these practices but his dependence on animal subjects led to erroneous information about humans that would be challenged and disproven by Belgian doctor Andreas Vesalius. French philosopher Rene Descartes used Vesalius findings to support the idea that animals were “unthinking unfeeling machines” which encouraged researchers to use animals without moral concern. Criticizing Vesalius, French philosopher François- Marie Arouet de Voltaire stated that vivisection “uncovered organs of feelings in animals” proving that they weren’t machines. British philosopher Jeremy Bentham shortly after posed the question that many still ponder today. “The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?”
During the nineteenth century, a new found awareness of animal welfare led to organized efforts that helped pass The Cruelty to Animals Act in Britain in 1849. In December 1875, Frances Power Cobbe, founded the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection (later, the Victorian Street Society), the first organization to campaign against animal experiments. Cobbe would be the founder of other animal advocacy groups including the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Other parts of the world would also begin the fight against animal cruelty. In 1871, the first vivisection laboratories in the country were at Harvard University, despite opposition from the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Various animals’ rights groups formed and tried to outlaw the cruelty practices, they would help pass legislation during the 1890s that outlawed repetition of painful animal experiments for any purpose.
In 1906, after a series of injuries, sicknesses, and deaths, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act (PFDA). Until the 1930’s, doctors lobbied for a crack down on drugs and personal products sold. It wasn’t until after the death nearly 100 people that the public put enough pressure on Congress to strengthen the original PFDA. In 1938, the Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (PFDCA) passed stating that animal testing would be a requirement for all products. Wilson-Sanders notes that as time progressed the testing requirements were “gradually amended to include different species and to last for longer time periods.”
The antivivisection movement did not resurge again until the 1960s. Pepper, a Dalmatian disappeared from a family’s backyard, they searched for the truth and discovered that she had been sold to a hospital that conducted an experiment on her and euthanized her. People wanted new legislation that protected animals and would be monitored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) were brought forth. Congress passed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 making it necessary for animal dealers to be licensed and laboratories regulatory. In 1970 the act was renamed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and covered all warm- blooded animals, a year later rats, mice, and birds were excluded. In 1985, the act was amended again to require that researchers minimize the animal’s pain whenever possible through the use of anesthesia, pain killers, and humane euthanasia. In 1990, it was extended to farm animals.
Around this time Richard Ryder, coined the term speciesism referring to a “widely held belief that the human species is inherently superior to other species and so has rights or privileges that are denied to other sentient animals […] can also be used to describe the oppressive behaviour, cruelty, prejudice and discrimination that are associated with such a belief.” Ryder, after years of inflicting pain on animals through research, Ryder began to work against the evils done to animals by humans. Like many others before and after him, he used his sympathetic imagination to understand the animal’s experience. While in this class, we’ve been challenged not only stand outside ourselves and see how our reactions have affected other earthlings but to also try and place ourselves in the position of those animals who are so often mistreated in order for the human race to achieve a medical or scientific advance of some sort. But are the experiments performed considered essential for the betterment of mankind, is the use of animals even really necessary?
These questions constantly crossed my mind throughout the course especially when considering that we, as humans, try to separate ourselves from animals, why then is it that we try to find out about ourselves through the use of creatures that are different from us. Animal research is an established practice done all over the world that many believe is beneficial to advancements however it is also a horrible experience for the animals partaking in the procedures. As earthlings, we must consider that we are alike and that we are harming a part of ourselves and therefore to protect our own we should get rid of animal research ending animal cruelty and the moral damage that we are causing to ourselves. However this goal cannot be obtained right away, smaller steps must first be taken, the implementation and enforcement of laws has already began in past generations now we must ask ourselves what will we do? I think of the class and the small group of dedicated young men and women and how we could change the treatment of animals, what better way than to start right here on campus.




Built in the summer of 1977, the ARC (Animal Resource Center, previously the Animal Research Center) was originally a 50,000 square foot facility capable of housing 10-15,000 laboratory animals per year. Claiming to be "Seeking progress for all species through research" and located on 2701 Speedway, the “centralized facility permits the most efficient and up-to-date environmental control for sanitation and animal health monitoring. It also has access to a diagnostic laboratory, two complete animal surgery suites, several darkrooms, controlled environment rooms, and a necropsy room.”


The three primary units of the center are veterinary support, husbandry, and administrative services intended to help researchers and their goal. Users of the center include students and faculty from the departments of Anthropology, Chemical, Electrical, and Bio-Engineering, Biochemistry, Kinesiology, Nutrition, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Psychology, Zoology, and the School of Pharmacy .Since its construction, a 20,000 square foot extension was added with facilities for molecular biology, biohazard, and transgenic research. People in the building of assistance to researchers are fifteen part and full-time animal attendants and technicians, an administrative associate, a facilities manager, a compliance and training manager, and the director whose specialty is lab animal medicine. The mission statement of the ARC states that they will oversee “the care and use of vertebrate animals utilized as part of the research and teaching activities of the University and serves as a source of expertise and support for investigators and the administration on all issues related to laboratory animals.”
The activities performed in the center are pre-approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee whose mission is to “oversee the provisions for the care and well-being of animals used for research and educational purposes at The University of Texas at Austin. The IACUC is also committed to serving the public by ensuring conformance to all legal and ethical standards regarding the use of animals in research.” The facility is not open to everyone, to get into the center you must first fill and print out the ARC record, have it signed by your PI (Principle Investigator), obtain a proximity card from the ID center located in the FAC ID, and take printed form and ID to ARC front office to get card activated. When getting access to the center you must then enter the lobby/office/conference area and in order to go beyond this point you must be escorted by UT faculty member. “ALL visitors must register at the front desk of the ARC prior to entering the animal care areas.”


A limited amount of information regarding the ARC is posted online and few even know that the location exists on campus. These two factors lead me to believe that UT officials are aware of the uproar that would occur if the campus were made aware of the experiments that take place inside. While not much is made public about the projects conducted and several rules and guidelines are in place for researchers to follow, dreadful things still take place daily. In the experience of one of Professor Bump’s students who openly shared his work at the center he testified that the humane treatment of animals is sometimes overlooked for the benefit of research outcomes. “The subjects did not receive sedation or anesthetic as those chemicals would conflict with the aims of the experiment” (553). The results of the experiment were a priority over the treatment of animals. Something must be done, undoubtedly things of this nature take place more often than not and it’s these things that call for action and change. To get the ARC, and the atrocities that go on inside of the building, removed from campus we must first inform individuals about the situation. School officials have either intentionally or unintentionally kept the center out of sight and mind for students, even for those who pass it every day after all there is no sign with its name brightly displayed as is with other buildings on campus.
Simple ways of stopping the problem as individuals are by getting rid of household products that are tested on animals or are produce by harming animals, shopping for cruelty free supplies, or joining an organization that fights for animal rights (377). Students that already participate in organizations geared towards the protection of animals rights would be a great asset to the removal of the ARC since they in turn would further distribute information and be able to help investigate what takes place at the center. A rally in the west mall would be very helpful in getting the word out there to those other people who might care but not be involved with any campus organization. Enabling students to stay motivated, engaged, and propelled by a growing sense of confidence would be a challenge but social gatherings in which to discuss a plan of action for the upcoming semester would help keep people interested in what’s going on. By next semester, after further research has been done and information gathered to be considered a good story, it would be great to get the Daily Texan to write an article on what’s been uncovered. They would also be able to confront school officials more so than students involved in trying to remove the center from campus. It can be assumed that school officials would be reluctant to talk about the matter, this would then cause more support within the community and help enable a stronger voice against the ARC. In about mid October, after talking to officials of SG and other student based groups, I would want to see if anything could be done about presenting a piece of legislation to the campus which would call for the removal of the ARC.
Considered one of the top schools of the nations, UT is thought of as an example to many. To help lead the fight against animal cruelty would encourage other campuses to do the same and cause students to become informed about the laboratories and experiments that take place on their campus. Just looking out for animals can make a big change “In everything you do, try to educate others, stop cruel behaviors, and bring about a revolution in human consciousness” (350). We must stop being selfish and consider those that are harmed daily for no other reason than to answer a question. They are not at fault for the lack of answers and should be treated with more respect. With a few simple changes in ourselves, afterwards our community, and later the world all earthlings can live a peaceful life never worrying of any harm coming their way as many animals who live in fear about being abducted do today.
WORD COUNT WITH QUOTES: 2007
WORD COUNT WITHOUT QUOTES: 1732
Bibliography
"Animal Facility Access Policy ." UTARC. http://www.utexas.edu/research/arc/facilities/access.pdf
(accessed March 29, 2010).
"General Information ." UTARC . http://www.utexas.edu/research/arc/facilities/facility.htm (accessed
March 29, 2010).
"IACUC Mission Statement." Office of Research Support . http://www.utexas.edu/research/rsc/iacuc/
about.html (accessed March 29, 2010).
"Research Animals- History ." Libraby Index . http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2180/
Research-Animals-HISTORY.html (accessed March 29, 2010).
"Speciesism ." Richard Ryder . http://www.richardryder.co.uk/speciesism.html (accessed March 29,
2010).