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).

Racism vs. Speciesism The Roles of Society

Squirrels Lesson Plan

I want to first on poster board ask the class to come up with terms or ideas that they believe define racism and seciesism. From this I’m hoping we can try and see similarities and differences between the two and talk about whether before reading if we would have considered thinking of the two as similar and what in the readings really made the connection to them apparent. Next, I’d like to get the class to write terms or ideas that describe humans and animals. From this we can really take a look at the similarities and difference and ask ourselves why we believe humans to be superior. Also, this would allow us to discuss situations in which we believe the separation should be made is it ever justifiable.

Discussion

Elephant:
In 1973, Nicholas Fontaine described how people “administered beatings to dogs with the perfect indifference, and made fun of those who pitied the creatures as if they felt pain. They said that animals were clocks; that the cries they emitted when struck, were only the noise of a little string that had been touched, but that the whole body was without feeling” (776). I personally know a people that feel the same way towards pigeons and cats. As I was walking through the sports section in Target, there was a kid asking his dad to buy him a BB gun. The kid’s father was puzzled and asked him what the purpose of the gun would be. The kid responded that it was not for anything bad, that it was to shoot cats in the street. I walked away in disgust; I have no idea what the father responded. I noticed that we have made it acceptable for kids, especially boys to be cruel to animals. Society expects boys to exaggerate their masculinity and being cruel to animals is just part of the process. Early in the development of children, they learn that it is only natural for them to be cruel to animals and that their cruelty is acceptable because animals are inferior. Their pain is not similar to ours.

Duck:
I was immediately disturbed by Marjorie Spiegel’s words on the treatment of pets in The Dreaded Comparison. “Likewise, we might look at the relationship between a dog and his master, just one example of what is sometimes a modern slave/slave-owner relationship. The dog is considered by his owner to be a ‘good dog’ if he walks to heel, displays no great interest when nearing other dogs, doesn’t run except when allowed, doesn’t bark except when required, an has no emotional needs except when desired by the master” (768). Perhaps the key to Spiegel’s argument is the word “sometimes.” By focusing on the worst oppression of pet animals – dogs who spend their whole lives chained up so that it has severely limited mobility and extreme isolation, or dogs that suffer undue physical punishment at the hands of their masters – she perhaps willfully ignores cases where the relationship between animal and owner is mutually beneficial. Furthermore, she does not provide a reasonable alternative to the modern dog/dog-owner relationship. Surely she must understand the implications if the dog is to be without an owner; what one might call the reality of the situation. Even though ownership of another living being (a pet) replicates the oppressive mindset that links animal slavery to human slavery, it is perhaps a necessary evil. The dogs that I keep in my home would be kept in a tiny cage at the Anti-Cruelty Society and, if never found a home, would be put to sleep lonely and desperate.

Allie Cat:
Morrison writes that "there seems to be a more or less tacit agreement among literary scholars that, because American literature has been clearly the preserve of white male views, genius, and power, those views, genius, and power are without relationship to and removed from the overwhelming presence of black people in the United States" (5).She argues that the entire canon of American literature was, in fact, formed in response to this "dark, abiding, signing Africanist presence" (5). There emerged a "reflexive" black persona that allowed whites to examine their own fears and desires without having to acknowledge those feelings as their own. In other words, the contrast of blackness allowed white culture to face its own fear of freedom. Immigrants, colonists, Pilgrims, and refugees alike embraced the New World for its promise of freedom... but something so boundless and untameable is simultaneously scary. Change is not necessarily positive and success is not inevitable; what if they became failures and outcasts instead? Enslaved blacks offered a comforting contrast because they stood not only for the "not-free" but also for the "not-me" (38).

Panther:
After centuries of slavery, we were finally able to rid ourselves of this awful practice. It finally occurred to us that “blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor” (757). If we can abolish slavery then why can’t we show the same decency to animals? Perhaps it is something in our nature. “By viewing the experiences of animals –such as dogs and “milk cows”- through the lense of human slavery, we come to realize that master/slave relationships permeate our culture” (770). Human beings will always have a need to prove their superiority by ruling over some over creature. If it is not slaves or animals, then surely it will be something else. There will always be some sort of ruling class as long as humans are around.

Pelican:
“…from the disruption of self-regulated reproduction; to birth and the consequential destruction of the familial structure; throughout life and the many cruelties, such as vivisection and hunting, to which individuals are subjected”, from an outsider looking in, the way that humans regard and unjustly rule over animals is the same way that white Americans (as well as many others from other parts of the world) unjustly treated their slaves (770). It is difficult to come to terms with these similarities, which is why it is so easy for them to be overlooked. Remaining ignorant about difficult conclusions is a simple coping mechanism that has been utilized for centuries and is continuously being maintained today regarding the treatment of animals. “There are many disturbing similarities between their (slaves’) treatment at the hands of white people in the United States and the treatment of animals at the hands of a large sector of the American population”, yet it is being ignored daily (765).

Fox:
I believe that as a human race, we are, for the most part, disgusted with cruelty to animals when we are the ones being oppressive. We react to it in weird ways. Alice Walker writes, "And we are used to drinking milk from containers showing "contented" cows, whose real lives we want to hear nothing about, eating eggs and drumsticks from "happy" hens, and munching hamburgers advertised by bulls of integrity who seem to command their fate" (761) We lie to ourselves constantly about things like where the food we eat comes from. I think books like The Giving Tree have completely skewed our idea of survival. Thomas Hobbes, philosopher, writes that in a state of nature, life is nasty, brutish, and short. Life is not a pretty thing, but we like to put bright stickers and catchy slogans on our food to trick ourselves into thinking it was freely given. This is something that makes sense to me, but it is so strange to me at the same time. Eating is natural. We do it, animals do it. Everything does it. Why do we like to candy coat it so much?

Bear:
As an advocate for animal rights myself, I believe Alice Walker’s short story, Am I Blue?, deters readers from being persuaded to support animals. Instead, this story further polarizes readers into supporters and non-supporters with no grey area. If we are supporting Jeremy Benthem’s idea of Utilitarianism where “the proper end of all action is to achieve the greates happiness of the greatest number,” then this story is contradictory (756). I agree that Blue was not granted the greatest quality of life while living amongst his five acres alone and losing his friend Brown. It was the responsibility of his owners to insure that he was properly cared for daily so that he considered his comradary amongst other people and horses socially satisfying. However, to take the case of horse’s misfortune and apply it to all people of the equine industry is completely insane. Calling members of this industry “people who do not know that animals suffer,” is rather hypocritical coming from people who do not deal with horses on a daily basis (760). Communication and agriculture would never have advanced as it did without the domestication of the horse. Without them, the Mongols in Asia would never have been able to communicate across their vast empire and American settlers would have never been able to efficiently grow crops. One could argue that horses, as Blue, are not able to experience comradary amongst other horses and run free. However, human population has expanded into their territory so that their quality of life is greatest under domestication. You could argue that man has become the new friend to such domesticated animals as we share the same emotions with them as we do with human friends. Frederick Douglas accurately claims that "it should be the study of every farmer to make his horse his companion and friend, and to do this, there is but one rule, and that is, uniform sympathy and kindness" (783). Therefore, under Utilitarian principles, the domestication of horses has led to the greatest happiness.

Chill Cat:
Jeremy Benthem argues that, “A full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, a swell as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old.” (757) Fetuses, are treated with a higher regard and given more rights than that of animals before they ever breach. However, animals are not humans and the effect of speciesism places more value on a conglomeration of cells as opposed to a living, breathing animal. Alice Walker’s selection in “Am I Blue” had an proposes that people often forget themselves into a state of speciesism. Allowing that disconnect to occur that lets animals fall in the regard of humans. “I had forgotten that human animals and nonhuman animals can communicate quite well; if we are brought up around animals as children we take this for granted.” (760A) The inherent nature of a child who is cloaked in innocence is to regard the animal as an equal.

Orca:
Metaphorically speaking, this kind of slavery is still prevalent in the workplace and in people's minds.
People often assume that racism and slavery is over and has been over for nearly 60 years, but they could not be more incorrect. Just because they do not always witness it does not mean it is no longer taking place. Racism for example occurs everyday in many different forms. Young African American, Asian, Korean, and White persons are denied service at restaurants because of skin color; even if that is not the reason the restaurant owner gave them. My good friend, Michael, was denied service at a Luby’s once because he has a handkerchief around his left wrist. The owner stereotypically categorized him as a gang member and made him and his family, leave. Because of that one instance, “he had put up a barrier within to protect himself from further violence,” (761) or in this case public humiliation and abuse. Granted this happened many years ago so he has been able to grow from such a bitter experience, but he has not forgotten and will often not partake in activities in fear that he will stand out too much and be stared at by disrespectful, self absorbed, egoists. Although this was just a small instance of racism and stereotyping, slavery is something that happens every day. Now of course I do not mean literally, but figuratively. Young ethnic workers are often enslaved in their jobs and not given the opportunity to prosper. They get stuck in dead end jobs, based solely off of the color of their skin or the area they live. Now while the boss may not literally own the person, they do own the future and can dictate the direction it will travel with ease. By not giving these people the opportunity to grow, they are stripped of a “look of independence, of self possession, of inalienable [human] horseness.” (760)

Dolphin:
People learn about animal cruelty at a young age. I myself, as I’m sure many others have as well, wondered what it would be like if humans were the oppressed species. Would animals treat us the way we have treated them? It’s evident that they can feel pain of varying degrees. But would they have sympathy for humans or would they be our “masters” and humans be the oppressed. “…in Blue’s large brown eyes was a new look, more painful than the look of despair; the look of disgust with human beings, with life; the look of hatred.” (Walker 761)
I have had pets all my life. I thought I was providing a good life for them and that we were companions. I never considered myself their “master.” At least not until I read Spiegel’s The Dreaded Comparison and saw the definitions of racism and speciesism and saw how similar they are. The major part they have in common is that “…has the right to rule and use others.” (Spiegel 762) Reading this I realized that I am their master, whether I like it or not. I do prioritize that I am more important than they are. At least, until recently with my poor Ashes. But otherwise it is true. They “were torn from their mother’s arm soon after they were weaned, to be kept…as a pet.” (Spiegel 771) It pains me that I have taken part in the relationship between the oppressor and oppressed. The only idea I can hope for is that the life I have provided for them is a life of, while limited, freedom; free from pain, brutality, and slavery. My only hope is that they understand that I care for them, feel for them, want them to be happy and that I love them.

Rabbit
"By viewing the experiences of animals - such as dogs and 'milk cows' - through the lens of human slavery, we come to realize that master/slave relationships permeate our culture" (770). This attitude is what gave slave owners the "right" to break apart families and take children away from their mothers. "In the eyes of the white slave-holders, black people were 'just animals'" (771). These obvious callous acts can be compared to what happened to the horse Blue in Am I Blue by Alice Walker. When Blue made a connection with the brown horse that came to visit, he was crushed whenever she simple disappeared. "The children next door explained that Blue's partner has been 'put with him' (the same expression that old people used, I had noticed, when speaking of ancestor slavery who had been impregnated by her owner)" (760). And much like humans, Blue experienced much grief that his partner was taken from him

Racism vs Speciesism

When looking at the things that are produce from the deaths of animals we think of the leather and meat and the scientific information gathered from experiments but we rarely stop and think of the experiences these animals face beforehand.



“The death they suffer in our hands commonly is, and always may be, a speedier, and by that means less painful one, than that which would await them in the inevitable course of nature” (757).The truth of the matter is that we really will never know since we don’t allow their natural path of life to take place. And though we see it as necessary to continue our way of life we must ask ourselves if that makes it alright? Is our way of killing animals really faster? The problem with our mentality when it comes to the killing of animals is that we do not look at it in any moral aspect since we consider animals different from ourselves. But time and again, history has shown that if we overlook what is going on it’s bound to happen again and to a different group from before. In the beginnings of our country, Indians were “considered to be ‘like animals’ by the ‘settlers’” (760a) giving justification to the killings and stealing that shortly after took place.



The oppressed have always found a way to make those they wish to oppress, usually those who have resources being seeked, appear less human. Those who aren’t part of the oppressed or oppressors don’t help the situation either as they prioritize victims suffering according to who they see as most related to them. “We are deciding that one individual or group is more important than another, deciding that one individuals pain is less important than that of the next” (766). We help those who oppress keep oppressing and when we choose to fight for one group we allow the oppressors to target another group because we choose not to stand up for all people who might have the possibility of being oppressed. It is easy to not feel responsible for someone’s pain but we need to remember what events can come from that. We must think of slavery and the Holocaust and try to prevent the suffering of other earthlings. We need to remember that “pain is pain, whether it be inflicted on man or on beast” (762). It is our responsibility to look past the small differences that are cited as reasoning for why a certain group should be harmed. In this class, we focus on thinking of those who truly have no way to communicate their hurt- animals. In Am I Blue? by Alice Walker, we are reminded of how an animal who has been oppressed and unacknowledged for so long still has feeling regarding their situation. The author can see the horse’s emotions as he is enclosed in a small property, he has lost all his freedom but upon receiving a partner a difference is noticed by the author.

It is this positive change in the horse that seems to really spark the sympathetic imagination in the author since she feels a “mutual feeing between me and the horses of justice, of peace” (760b). She also is able to see the negative effects that changes and restrictions have on the horse when his partner is taken away. “It gave him, for the first time, the look of a beast” (761). The confusion that this animal has felt devastated him like most traumatic events affect people but he has no voice and no one to talk for him which makes the situation worse.

Costello 3

While reading, the idea that there are two types of animal lovers stood out immensely. The division was between hunters who are “people who value the animals at a very elementary, unreflective level; who spend hours watching them and tracking them, get pleasure from the taste of their flesh” and what I thought to be activist “people who have little contact with animals or at least with those species they are concerned to protect, like poultry and livestock”(110). In Coetzee’s book Elizabeth Costello asks the audience to reflect and answer “of the two, which, I ask, loves animals more” (110)? I had never thought about it in this sense. Through this class I’ve come to think of the cruelty inflicted on animals in order for people to be fed and clothed but this makes you think about the people that surround the killing of animals. The way it’s written in Coetzee’s book, a grand difference between those who honor all and those who defend a few is portrayed making, in my opinion, activists the lesser of the two lovers of animals.



Hunters are portrayed as respecting all animals and showing the importance of its life even in the animal’s death. “Kill the beast by all means, they say, but make it a contest, a ritual, and honour your antagonist for his strength and bravery. Eat him too, after you have vanquished him, in order for his strength and courage to enter you. Look him in the eyes before you kill him, and thank him afterwards. Sing songs about him” (97). The connection that hunters are perceived to have with animals even if their intent is to kill them is, in a sadistic manner, a display of passion and affection. They don’t pick certain animals to love; hunters hold these ideals towards all animals.



I would agree that hunters love animals more since after all activists don’t ever really fight for all animals they fight for a specific type of animal. Also I rarely hear about activists standing up for smaller and what are considered to be ugly animals like rats unlike hunters who honor whatever it is they might kill. When looking at this argument I think of the possibilities of other perspectives portrayed in literature and its effects on the animal cruelty subject. Fiction and poetry, along with non- fiction seem to play an important part in the discussion adding insightfully different ideas and perspectives that at times we forget because “we cannot experience abstractions” (98) and these forms of literature make them realistic even if only for a few minutes.

In Kafka’s, A Report for an Academy we see the effects integrating into the human realm has had on an ape named Red Peter. We look at the story and his detailing of the events and can believe that this is possible but we look at it and can tell that it isn’t a good idea. We learn of the harm done to the ape through his journey and we see what his thoughts were throughout the whole ordeal. “I’ll say it again: imitating human beings was not something which pleased me. I imitated them because I was looking for a way out, for no other reason” (662). It becomes easy to see that what we might think is a good idea can be actually very damaging those who have to undergo the process. This applies to all treatment of animals really, whatever we do to them might seem to be worth something but in reality it might only be harmful. I was annoyed really at what was considered his process towards becoming closer to humans, it consisted of spitting, smoking a pipe, and drinking. Not only does this make me see the stupid things some people would like to see animals do but it makes me think of what separates from animals. If these are the things Red Peter had to learn to integrate into our society is there really much of a difference between humans and animals?



While this fictional work provides insight to an animal’s mind Rilke’s poem The Panther makes us think of what it’s like to be an animal. He chooses to describe a caged animal to emphasize the negative affects our brilliant ideas can have on animals “To him, the world is bars, 100,000 bars, and behind the bars, nothing” (665). While we visit zoos and love believing we’re keeping animals safe in tiny cages they see nothing but a small are that literarily is their whole world. How sad would it be if we were the ones trapped in those small cages for the rest of our lives, how weird that we never think of it that way when we stare at an animal’s amazing beauty as we stand outside the cage. It takes fiction to make the abstracts disappear and that is why they are really helpful for the conversation on animal cruelty.

Costello 2

“Do I like animals? I eat them, so I suppose I must like them, some parts of them” (674). Being allergic to most house hold pets has prohibited me from developing a relationship with animals. I see them on television and have stuffed animals but I don’t believe it’s the same effect as having the real thing. While I have found this bothersome at times, I continue to think of myself as able to relate to these creatures that share a world with me. Cesar Chavez once said that, “Kindness and compassion toward all living things is the mark of a civilized society” (731) however when focusing on the cruelty inflicted on animals it makes me wonder how civilized are we really? Because I’ve grown up eating meat, I see nothing wrong with it. It’s a part of my daily diet and it provides me with several nutrients that help me maintain a healthy lifestyle. However, upon reading articles, studies, and sections in books that display how humans are cruel to animals for no apparent reason, except for some sadistic satisfaction, I’ve began to look at my plate differently. I look at my plate and can only think of the process that has led that piece of an animal to be in front of me and be thought of as food. I think of the cows on their way to the slaughterhouses then daggling before having their throats slit and suffocating on their own blood. Each time I look at my plate, I am reminded about the suffering animals must endure daily in order for me to have a meal.



I realize that “many people prefer not to think too much about what is being done to those outside the sphere of the favored group” (638) but it is this that has caused the death of so many in the past. The prime example in our reading is that of the Holocaust. So many people chose to avoid what they heard was going on in concentration camps and because of this several were found dead when people finally decided to open there eyes to what had always been right in front of them. While I understand the comparison and do feel bad about the pain I do not think of myself as a horrible person. Theodor Adorno stated that “Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals” (725). I agree with this comment, though it might sound hypocritical since meat can be found on my plate; however I realize that these animals are more than just that. They are earthlings and should be treated with respect nothing makes us lesser than humans, its only perception that has phrased events in that way. Those select few who have stood up and fought for the rights of Jews in Nazi Germany and for animals are sympathetic to those they might or might not have a connection too and in turn make the world a better place. “The world would no doubt be a worse place without them” (671). They fight what most people see as the norm and put into action the teaching of several religious teachings. “Those who permit the slaughter of an animal, who kills sit, who cuts it up , who buys or sells flesh, who cooks it, who serves it up, and who eats sit, are all slayers” (726). I realize they are great people for fighting the cruelties against animals and though I’m not a part of that battle I don’t believe it means I’m against it either. I feel that everyone supports a good cause in their own way and lately I’ve began to think what will I do to help those who can’t fight for themselves.

Costello 1: The Problem of Evil

J. M. Coetzee’s book, Elizabeth Costello, is intentionally vague to make the reader think about the several different perspectives one should take into consideration when reflecting on the treatment of animals. A comparison of Costello and Red Peter, a monkey in Franz Kafka’s Report to an Academy, shows that she has no real purpose but to inform the audience of what she knows. She chooses the topic of human’s treatment of nonhuman animals and relates the topic to the Holocaust. “‘Holocaust’ originally denoted ‘a Hebrew sacrifice in which the entire animal was given to Yahweh [God] to be consumed by fire’ (732). This definition of the word shows that while we think of the term as being reflective of a historic atrocity it was originally was an action committed against animals.



This event has recently reconnected to its original definition but many people do not see it in that way, they see it as an offense to those who suffered in Nazi Germany. In the course packet article, “Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to The Holocaust?” Sztybel, a descendant of those affected by the Holocaust displays 39 points that show the similarities between the two, some of these points were also made in Coetzee’s book. In both situations people “said that, while in a sense they might have known, in another sense they did not know, could not afford to know, for their own sake” (64). The fear of realizing that harm is being inflicted on another silences those who know because of the consequences that might come their way. Speaking out against the actions of those in power during Nazi Germany meant risking your life.



In the case of animal cruelty speaking out means finding a new lifestyle and really realizing the quantity of animals affected by one’s daily actions. In both situations you must fight against those who are like you, maybe not in ideology but in being thought of as reasoning beings. The importance of reasoning is significant in the argument for the acceptance of animal cruelty and since those who suffered during the Holocaust were thought of as vermin, they too were probably thought of as unreasoning beings.



Another similarity is that we cannot find it within ourselves to be in the shoes of those who are suffering. We seem to think of ourselves as in the past in the present and in the future but it is almost impossible for us to think of ourselves as the other. “Now I ask: if we are capable of thinking our own death, why on earth should we not be capable of thinking our way into the life of a bat” (77)? In both situations, the horrors inflicted on others could be prevented if we were to stop and just imagine what might have we felt if we were on the other side. I think about so many people in Nazi Germany who would pass by piles of dead bodies and not say a word in objection because they figured it didn’t affect them.




I think this might be the reason that most animal cruelty is done behind closed doors so that instead of just trying to ignore what is going on people don’t even have a chance to look it most of the time. There are several other points that are presented in the book and article but the understanding of discriminatory oppression which “involves a willingness to harm a given class of beings, on the basis that those individuals are different in some specific way” (734) is essential to why these events have happened and continue to happen. All points are embodied in this statement in my opinion since it is all differences that allow for mistreatment and have led to a similarity between all of the oppressed. While several negative connection have been made I’ve also found an extremely positive one that gives hope about the continued effort against those who oppress others. The connection I found most interesting is that those that have fought for animals are those that have fought for others as well, “the animal- protection societies that arose in the nineteenth century were in fact founded by the same social activists who founded the antislavery and women’s suffrage societies” (636). While this gives hope that people will be found that will stand up and fight for what they believe to be just and fair I also think it’s a little saddening that it is the same group dedicated to ending everyone’s suffrage. This prohibits full concentration on one topic and doesn’t produce the full results needed or wanting by those fighting.

Vivisection

Having recently been made aware of the existence of the ARC by Professor Bump, I wondered who if anyone would be willing to admit that they worked there and what they did there. Thinking about the diverse ideas held by students on the issue, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to be upfront about their participation in cruelty towards animals. I was amazed by the experiences described by both students who have been a part of the work done in the ARC. This building has “one hundred experimental laboratories” (551), I can’t begin to imagine how many animals have been in and out of these rooms and all for the purpose of science.






These students vividly described their participation in vivisection experiments which are “commonly understood as dissecting a live animal or performing some other painful operation on it for scientific purposes” (550). A comment was made about how this idea is “a morally complex case of animal abuse” (550) but I couldn’t understand why. After reading their testimonies the only thing that crossed my mind was why would someone want to research these things and still think it morally complex? I understand that the reasoning behind conducting these experiments is mainly for medical advances but when reading the description of the two experiments I couldn’t understand what advances would be obtained.





In one of the experiments they would take Japanese quail and find the “copulatory (sexual) behavior” (553) of birds in different conditions that varied in sexual experience and the novelty of their partners. The second experiment measured the amount of alcohol intake from different genetic strains of mice” (558), no reason was really given for why this experiment was being done. Seriously, what could be learned that will be considered a breakthrough for scientists? In both these cases the students knew what was being done to the animals after they were used and still stuck around thinking of it as a good experience for medical school or as necessary. One of the students even claimed they felt guilty but learned to “love with detachment” (558) in order to continue his work. In reading this I was a little frightened by how easy it becomes to some people to just stand around and make excuses for things that are going on around them. In reading this I was a little frightened by how easy it becomes to some people to just stand around and make excuses for things that are going on around them.



In reading the essay by Carroll, I was a bit confused on his stance on the issue. While I think this is due to reading his book and focusing only on the cruelty described in the book I also think he really was just trying to point out all their mistakes and not really his stance in the matter. “All who recognize the difference of right and wrong must admit, if the question be closely pressed, that, the infliction of pain is in some cases wrong” (541). The problem with this statement to me that it leaves everything up to interpretation allowing for the justification of any action in any situation. Like Carroll points out, corruption exists even when the best intentions are perceived. Who is to say that everyone or a certain group of people should be allowed to make the decision on what is considered to be ok. This is what’s led to events like the Holocaust and slavery, a group believing they know what the right option is. Carroll does point out that “repression of all human sympathies, shall have developed a new and more hideous Frankenstein” (548) showing the importance of really being conscious of the decisions we make in regards to other earthlings.

Alice Readings

Having never read Carroll’s book, I was intrigued by the selections that were given in the course packet and how they portrayed the characters so highly cherished by several children. I couldn’t imagine a child fully understanding everything going on in the book. The whimsical personification of several different creatures makes children see the characters as cute animations when in reality they are portray highly rude characteristics that make them not so cute. The main character in the book, Alice, seems immature, selfish, rude, and ignorant. I understand that she is young but I see her as sheltered and spoiled at the beginning of her journey. She slowly grows but still maintains some bad habits.



Throughout the book she finds herself questioned by other characters (the caterpillar and the pigeon) about her identity several times to conclusion that she doesn’t know. “Who in the world am I? Ah, that’s the great puzzle” (466)! Through the encounters with different characters in the book, she is intended to deal with one of her traits that aren’t so pleasant and while she attempts to deal with most of them her impatience shines through as she snaps or walks away from most of the characters.



For example, after growing several feet high she cries and makes a big puddle which she later must swim in with tons of other little creatures. Alice asks a mouse for help but can find no connection to it except for her own selfish needs and therefore begin to tell stories about her cat and the neighbor’s dog that enjoy catching mice, insulting the mouse who is trying to be helpful. “Alice demonstrates very quickly that she is unable to imagine what it is like to live in the world of the mouse, or indeed, any world but her own” (538). While the mouse tries to be patient, Alice makes hard by disregarding the feelings of the mouse upon hearing what she considers to be happy tales. “But you’re so easily offended, you know!” (477) Never thinking that she is wrong for having shared her story, she places the blame on the mouse who’s done nothing but befriended her. After getting out of the water they participate in a Caucus Race with the other creatures, when the Dodo (the one who came up with the game) was asked who the winner was he was unable to pick a winner and decided they all won. This wasn’t only because of the lack of rules, I think it was him not wanting to hurt the feelings of the creatures around him by saying that they had lost. This first demonstration of concern for others didn’t really seem to be important to Alice who thought of everything as a big joke. In the next section, her rude tendencies shine through in her treatment to the rabbit and his friends. Whiles inside a house too small for her recent growth spurt she acts scared of being confronted by the much smaller characters. However, this fear only makes her think of ways to hurt them and preventing them from gaining any control over the situation she already has no control over. The horrible human qualities of Alice shine through as she chooses to harm defenseless animals because of her selfish needs to maintain whatever little power she still has and to ensure no connection between her and the creatures can be made. In another section where Alice is talking to a pigeon, again she tries to maintain her distance from the creatures by denying any similarities to them even when told that like snakes she eats eggs too. She can’t have this and ensures that the differences between the two are known.

There are a few characters that truly impact Alice and allow her to put herself in their shoes. After being stubborn and impatient with a footman and entering the Duchess house without permission she asks questions about the grinning Cheshire cat. “‘You don’t know much,’ said the Duchess; ‘and that’s a fact’” (483). This reflects my previous interpretation of Alice’s character as ignorant and especially when it comes to other animals. The Duchess pointing out Alice’s fault began the real change for Alice as she slowly began to really consider her actions and those of the people around her.Later in the book it is the Cheshire cat that she truly first shows empathy when she tries to ensure that its head is not cut off.



After her conversation with the Duchess she is handed over the pig to nurse it while the Duchess gets ready. She looks at the pig and thinks that the possibility that the pig will die in the near future is realistic and begins to feel compassion for its innocence and foolishness that has gotten it into that position. She then begins to question her role in the pigs future death. “Would it be murder to leave it behind” (485)? After never looking at situation from others perspectives, her journey has made her finally think of others and the role she plays that can influence the outcomes. She then heads to the Queens place and again puts herself in the shoes of others. “Carroll’s part by turning these “human” characters into personified playing cards, inherently small and thin, suggesting that their self serving, self indulgent natures make them shallow excuses for human beings” (539). In realizing that she can influence the situation at hand, she finds empathy for the cards when the Queen orders for their heads to be chopped off and defends them. Finding the Queen childish and annoying and seeing a connection to others around her more than she ever has in the past, Alice continues her growth of character and her journey to discovering who she is.