Dolphin Documentary

Taiji, Japan was a “little town with a big secret”. This small town on the coast of Japan seems tranquil and quiet, but in reality, it is a place of brutality and covert, horrific actions involving the exploitation, abuse and murder of bottlenose dolphins. The development of the organization in Taiji was run around the implementation of little rules, with the exception of secrecy. The shores off of Tailji were filled with hundreds and hundreds of dolphins – some alive, but most dead. The Japanese began harvesting dolphins for the use in entertainment after observing the grand success of the movie Flipper. The narrator of the documentary was the trainer of Cathy, the flipper dolphin. As he was training her, he had no idea what ideas were brewing based upon his success. 

Cathy was so intelligent that she could watch herself on television and could recognize herself from other dolphins. Because Cathy was trained so well, the movie Flipper earned an astonishing profit, launching the dolphin-entertainment industry. Twice a year, the bottlenose dolphin migrate along the Japan shores. Dolphins as a species lead auditory driven lives. The Japanese took advantage of this dependence that dolphins have on sound in order to capture and harvest the dolphins as they pleased. The harvesters would line up in boats right outside of the migration line with thick metal poles placed into the surrounding water. As soon as the dolphins began migrating, the hunters would bang the submerged poles with hammers and the loud, vibrating sound would drive the dolphins towards shore, directly into the nets. 

Once in the nets, the dolphins were captured for good, no escaping. Dolphin trainers from around the world gather once the dolphins are caught and they choose which dolphin they want to train. The hundreds of dolphins left without a trainer are left to die, rather than released. Once the dolphins are chosen by a trainer, they are shipped off to their perspective new homes and kept in small tanks only to be exploited for their tricks and stunts. “A dolphin’s smile is their most deceptive feature”. To be honest, I knew nothing about dolphins living in captivity, nor did I ever bother to wonder where they came from or how they came to be captive rather than living in their natural environments. It was horrifyingly upsetting to see the way that they were treated. The documentary was made not only to expose the torturous means of capturing dolphins but also to show how they were exposed. The Japanese people of Taiji did everything in their physical power to prevent outsiders from coming to their small town and seeing the work that they were doing underwater. The narrator of the documentary prodded without ease until the workers of this business was exposed and shut down. He was successful!  

http://www.deeper-blue.org/Blog-DeeperBlue/public/120_THE_COVE.jpg

http://www.japanprobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/the-cove.jpg

Speaking For The Unspoken

Squire Gordon, Mrs. Gordon, James Howard, John Manly, Blomefield Children, Joe Green, Earshire Park Mistress, Mr. York, Lady Anne, Reuben Smith, Mr. Barry, Jerry Barker, Polly, Harry Dolly, Governor Grant, Jakes Nicholas Skinner, Farmer Thoroughgood, Ellen and Lavinaia Blomefield and many groomers are all humans that are pebbled throughout Beauty’s life as  an owner, a caretaker, or simply a player in the ups and downs of his life. The way that beauty is tossed around from place to place with little to no regard for his feelings, could be compared to a car being traded between dealers, a sandwich being traded at lunch or stocks being exchanged in New York, but I find that the most direct and equivalent correlation of the trafficking of Black Beauty in this novel is to a foster child being passed around to different homes throughout their lives. 

A foster child is taken away from their parents either because they are unable to care for them or because circumstances force the child to be taken from their original home and placed under the care of a guardian.  The child, like Beauty as no choice as to which foster home they are sent to, nor do they have any say of how they are treated in those homes. Each of the humans listed above were involved in Beauty’s life for a small amount of her life and impacted her emotions. He became afraid of bearing reins because her mistress at Earlshall insisted that he wear them while Jerry Barker allowed him to see the depths of a loving family and long for that love for himself. Similar to many foster parents, there were some humans in Beauty’s journey that were loving and desired for him to be happy.  Ginger and Sir Oliver are the equivalents of foster siblings to Beauty. 

They each have their scars and marks from their previous owners. Sir Oliver had his tail chopped off simply because his owner thought it was stylish while Ginger has a bad temper because she was abused by her previous owners. Beauty also had good influence from her ‘foster parents’, such as Mr. Barker. Mr. Barker protected the interests of Beauty because he took ownership of his feelings. Because Beauty could not speak, Mr. Barker took special interest in the desires of Beauty, as the sole being that could be a voice for those with no verbal voice. “Well, Polly, you may say that my cab will be otherwise engaged; I should not like to have it pasted over with their great bills, and as to make Jack and Captain race about to the public-houses to bring up half-drunken voters, why I think ‘twould be an insult to the horses. No, I shan’t do it’” (42). When humans such as Mr. Barker are involved in an aninmal, such as Beauty’s, life, they set the standards for how all animals should be treated. Animals are essentially a prisoner within themselves in a world based upon the spoken language. When humans are not attentive to the animals needs or desires, they will be blind to them. “I am ashamed to see how men go on that ought to know better. An election is a very serious thing ; at least it ought to be, and every man ought to vote according to his conscience and let his neighbour do the same” (42).  Each person ought to consider the lives of all beings around themselves. Just like a child, an animal is ruled by those of authority to them. Sewell used the powerful tactic of voice to annunciate the importance of humbleness in authority and care for others. Simply because an individual is comfortable in their place, each is not to their own. Animals are born without voice and I agree with Sewell in that it is time to take the initiative for the animals and speak for them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Bearingrein.jpg
http://www.jewel-images.com/blog/?p=643

Ignorant

According to the official website, Cirque Du Soleil is a flashy, “dramatic mix of circus arts and street entertainment” while a circus itself publically entails cotton candy, clowns and nothing other than fun. It is what goes on behind the scenes of these ostentatious performances that is atrociously and conspicuously hidden behind the curtains and the smiling face-painted clowns. Circuses make their profits from the customer’s satisfaction in the show. A customer’s satisfaction comes from seeing the unusual, witnessing the seemingly impossible and making believe what they never thought they would.  Flexible humans, trapeze artists and performing animals are usually the highlights. The humans in the shows choose to use their own talents to earn themselves their livelihood, while the animals are forced to act in specific ways with absolutely no benefit to themselves except for the possibility of not getting abused for tor disobeying. As we saw in Earthlings, human elephant trainers in the circus clan are emotionally and physically abusive to their students. They yell and hit the elephants simply because they can and they feel superior over them, which is an interesting concept to me because the elephant is so much larger physically than the human. Animals that are taken on the road with circuses are treated with little to no regard to their health by their caretakers. 

These animals are meant to be living in the wild and when they are held in small cargo trains for weeks at a time, they develop captivity-induced health problems that are linked to lack of proper exercise and prolonged chaining around their necks and ankles (according to http://www.animalrightsflorida.org/Circus.htm). In Sewell’s Black Beauty, Beauty is taken from her world of natural kindness and thrown into a new world with complete and utter ignorange and carelessness of his sufferings and pains all alone, with “No other creature…” besides the misogynistic human (27).

. Beauty is referred to as a steam engine and is not assigned a single attribute of a living species. “…if you don’t want to lame your horse, you must look sharp and get them out quickly. This foot is very much bruised…if I might advise, sir, you had better drive him gently for a while; the foot is a good deal hurt, and the lameness will not go off directly. ‘…When he was gone, my driver began to flop the reins about, and whip the harness, by which  I understood that I was to go on, which of course I did, glad that the stone was gone, but still in a good deal of pain. This was the sort of experience we job-horses often came in for”(28). Although beauty got a rock stuck in her shoe and was clearly injured, her driver continued to push him, disregarding any pain that he may have because the driver simply desires to press forward. Animals that are under the control of ignorant humans forces them to shape their own mindset in order to handle their awful circumstances. “There was a great deal of bargaining; of running up and beating down , and if a horse may speak his mind so far as he understands, I should say there were more lies told, and more trickery at the horse fair, than a clever man could give an account of” (32). Sewell portrays Beauty as having superior intelligence to the abusive humans. Animals like Beauty are put through outrageous pain and sorrow because their masters are selfish and boorish to the idea that animals have physical and mental capacities equal to or superior to many individuals of the human race.

 http://www.animalrightsflorida.org/Circus.htm

http://allianceforanimalrights.webs.com/elephant-ent-13.jpg

http://www.mpimages.net/mp/compressed/promotional/young_black_beauty1.jpg

Running Potential

   While delving into a book, it is not usually expected to be reading from the perspective of something other than a human, yet that exactly what we get  in Anna Sewell’s Black Beauty. Sewell presents animal cruelty from the point of view of the mistreated rather than like most other author’s who speak from an objective view, or from the view of the abuser themselves. When animal cruelty is spoken about through the lips of an animal rights human, although they side with the animal, they are still of the same species as the ones imparting the injustice and therefore lose a little of their credibility as an animal advocate. There is no way that a human could fully understand the same feelings or emotions that an animal may have during cruel actions. It is the fact that animals are subjugated to horrific acts that makes it so difficult for humans to use a sympathetic imagination towards the animal’s feelings. “…[W]ith cruelty and oppression it is everybody’s business to interfere when they see it…” but what about for the millions of humans who never see it (20)? In this novel,  Sewell does as best as any human could do to put herself in the hooves of a horse who is subjected to abuse by the human species. Sewell does an excellent job of getting to the soul of the humans and animals alike by allowing Black Beauty to have animal and human friends as well as animal and human enemies. Sewell not only used this novel to put herself in the place of the horses, but also to let each of her readers get a small taste of what animal cruelty can look and feel like. 

Sewell gave each horse in her novel a voice and a place. Each horse was a character in its own with a personality, characteristics and vices. The horses are given human traits to make it easier for the human readers to relate. “Merrylegs could not be resisted, so we broke off our long conversation, and got up our spirits by munching some very sweet apples which lay scattered on the grass” (10). According to the average human, animals cannot speak or feel, much less carry on a conversation and have relationships. The difference that many humans place between themselves and animals is that they can perceive themselves in a place and that they can feel passion and  build bonds with others of their kind or even interspecies. In Black Beauty these horses passionately feel and emotionally act on their ideas and emotions.

   Humans do not understand the ways of animals, how they think and how they act are so foreign to us because we do not have the same form of communication. “[Ginger] did bite James once pretty sharp, but John said, ‘Try her with kindness,’ and instead of punishing me as I expected, James came to me with his arm bound up, and brought me a bran mash and stroked me; and I have never snapped at him since, and I won’t either” (8). This novel encourages acts of kindness towards animals and discourages the instinctual acts of superiority such as using bearing reigns. Sewell embraces the relationship between human and animal as something with so much room to grow and succeeds in making her readers aware of this relationship potential. Animal instinct is to love and embrace, what is human's instinct?

Jainism vs. Christianity

What was the deciding factor of the differences between humans and animals? Do humans think they are superior over animals because we walk on two legs rather than four or because we speak with articulate words while they speak with signals or sounds? According to Jainism and Ecology, “religion distinguishes the human species from all others, just as human presence on earth distinguishes the ecology of our planet fro other places in the unknown universe. Religious life and the earth’s ecology are inextricably linked, organically related” (810). 

Many humans, specifically westerners, believe that we, as a species, have reign over the animal species because we were given this right by God himself. “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things” (Genesis 9:3, 809). God may have blessed humans with animals as their companions, but He also told his sons “…the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth…”(Genesis 9:2, 809). I believe that we were given animals as a gift, yet as a species we have completely taken this gift for granted and taken advantages of the seeming superiority that we have with our brain capacities and exponential technological advances. The “task…of revaluing nature so as to prevent its destruction marks a significant new phase in religious thought”. Religion is not a single decision made on a whim by a single person. All religions are traditional waves that have been shaped and twisted from some original idea to what is practices in today’s society. Expanding the religious realm of human-animal relations will  take more than simply a few advocates speaking out on the animals’ behalves. Religion is one of the most immovable, stubborn theologies on the planet. In order for a movement to happen involving religion would take a radical movement with explicatory action. Jainsim is “an ancient religion of India, also now found in other countries around the world, that prescribes a path of peace and non-violence towards all living beings” (Wikipedia Jainism). A part of Jainsim called Ahimsa is a “non injury, of course, [and] implies non-killing. But, non-injury is not merely non-killing. In its comprehensive meaning, Ahimsa or non-injury means entire abstinence from causing any pain or harm whatsoever to any living creature either by thought, word or deed. Non-injury requires a harmless mind, mouth, and hand” (815).

 The crisis and cause of many major wars has its source at the bounds of religion. The difference between the non-kill ideas of Jainism and the non-killing ideas of Christianity are vast. While non-kill means not killing any living thing to Jainists, non-kill to Christians means not killing another human being. Killing animals is okay for Christians because God has given them animals as a means to nurture themselves and survive while Jainists find other means of nutrition as this is what is required to avoid killing or hurting any living thing, emotionally or physically. How can two religions that are so different come together on such a contradictory idea? According to the Neo-Confucian Manifesto, “such crises have their origin in man’s inability to control his cultural products and inventions…it is clear that the formation of a world civilization is contingent upon co-operation on a high plane among the various cultures of the world” 832). I agree with this notion that in order to make a difference in the world and in order to collide two very different religions, people must cooperate or else no progress would be made. Christian and Jainist ideas on eating animals is contingent on their respective religious leaders and this is likely not to change unless eyes are opened to the reality of the others’ thought origins. For these two separate worlds to converge and even align, there must be major cooperation and sympathetic imagination must be utilized in order to fully understand one another.

http://www.pluralism.org/resources/statistics/jainism_distribution.gif

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/churchbodies.gif

http://www.mumbaikar.com/en/media/get/20090825_mahavir.gif 

Differences Nearly Never Converging

Figure 1: Human and animal brains are more similar than the average human knows.

Humans walk on two legs while animals walk on four. Humans have hair while animals have fur. Humans have the capacity to think and acknowledge that they are thinking while animals have the capacity to think and to immediately act on what they are thinking. “Animals are born, are sentient and are mortal. In these things they resemble man. In their superficial anatomy – less in their deep anatomy – in their habits, in their time in they physical capacities, they differ from man. They are both alike and unlike” (795). There are so many ways in which the man can be seen as advantageous over the animal. The man has technology and higher level thinking but the animal has instinct that man has lost most sensitivity to due to these same recent technological advancements that give them the false sense of superiority. As I watch to myself type this paper, I can’t help but notice my lack of commitment to either species. I refer to animal and human with the same term, “them”. I am obviously a human, but what makes a human so human besides physical and mental traits? “Between two men the two abysses are, in principle, bridged by language…language allows men to reckon with each other as with themselves…whereas in animals feat is a response to signal, in men it is endemic” (795). Through extremely in depth studies, experiments and analyses, it has been found that there are many biological similarities between humans and animals. From the eyes of a child, it seems that this strict line separating humans and animals disappears into the realm of invisibility. I would assume that every person found a childhood friend in a dog, cat or fish. It is not until these children grow up and are immersed into the cultural pull so society that they are swayed into believing that the differences that humans and animals do not share separate them into inferior and superior beings. “With their parallel lives, animals offer man a companionship which is different from any offered by human exchange. Different because it is a companionship offered to the loneliness of man as a species”(796). Like children, animals do not differential humans as a species of particular danger or dislike. They understand that we are different, not constituting different with any negative connotation, just as different.

Figure 2: Animals were used by royalty as symbols are higher class. 

   Just as a college roommate shares a space with us, animals share a space with us on this planet. It is a shame that animals are merely seen as a source of food, entertainment or trouble, rather than the beautiful beings that they were created to be. In the early centuries of the world, “…admirers valued these exotic menageries as marvels, not because of any fondness for their inmates…but [most] served mainly as toys or badges of rank, and whatever affection befell on them neither extended to other animals nor was mimicked by the lower orders of society” (801). Since the beginning of time, humans have found themselves to prevail over animals simply because they had the tools to do so. “presumption is our natural and original disease…’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” (835). As humans, we act as if we completely understand the differences between man and animal, that we can fathom the lack of feeling that they have and their lack of intelligence. We will never be able to comprehend the thoughts of animals or appreciate their levels of thinking because on a level of reality, we can never sincerely empathize with them because we are different than them. We are not animals just as they are not humans. There are similarities, of course, but there are also differences that make them distinct from us and visa versa. “Just because of this distinctness, however, an animal’s life =, never to be confused with a man’s can be seen to run parallel to his. Only in death do the two parallel lines converge” and only then might we have the total capacity to understand and empathize with each others differences (796).  

https://files.nyu.edu/ahk291/public/Standard%20Poodles%20%20Famous%20Poodles.html

http://www.solarnavigator.net/human_brain.htm

MANkind

   Growing up, my father rarely missed an opportunity to remind me that as long as I was living under his house, I had to abide by his rules and was essentially under his control. What gave him the ability to claim to ownership over me? What gave my father, and my mother as well, the edge over me was that they bore me, they raised me and provided for me. I follow their rules because I wanted to, not because I was afraid of the consequences if I didn’t. A father may have superiority over his children for a select span of their lives, but this ownership should never carry over to superiority over differing sexes, species or races but it does. Paralleling the way that humans treat animals, many men treat women with disrespect, inferiority and abuse. “Applying images of denigrated nonhuman species to women labels women inferior and available for abuse; attaching images of the aggrandized human species to men designates them superior and entitled to exploit. Language is a powerful agent in assigning the imagery of animal vs. human. “ (785).  Words like “bitch” fox” and “cougar” are all words used to describe a woman’s physique, mostly used by men. This raises the question of why use animal names to describe a woman? Why no t men? Why aren’t these same words used to describe a woman’s innerself? If “
the use of animals’ [names] reflects the speciesists’ belief that humans fundamentally differ from all nonhuman animals and are inherently superior” then how is it okay to relate a human to these names (789). Human beings are biologically extremely similar to many, if not most, of animal species. According to Wikepedia, “In literal, non-slang use, bitch is a term for female canines, particularly amongst dog breeders. It is also a common English profanity for a woman that typically carries denigrating or misogynistic overtones—such as resemblance to a dog. It is also used to characterize someone who is belligerent and unreasonable, or displays rudely intrusive or aggressive behavior”.  From my project two research of female breeding dogs, I have found that female dogs, bitches, are often used solely for pumping out puppies, which in turn leads to profit. These dogs are abused, beaten and disrespected, just as many men treat women. Men call women Bitches because they have some distorted view of superiority over them and feel that they have the right to treat them however they want solely because they were born with enhanced rights. “…Man and mankind too reflect speciesism. Their power to lower women’s status rests on the premise that those outside our species do not merit equal consideration and respect”. Just as ignorant humans abuse animals, ignorant men abuse women (717).

   As a new coinsure of animal treatment awareness, it is degrading and boorish to animals, more than to the women at stake. A woman called a “bitch” may sincerely have a conceited, rude attitude and deserve to be called a name such as “rude” or conceited”. The dog, on the other hand, is related to such an ill-mannered person as this, negatively personifying an innocent, giving animal. Most animal dervived names that are given to human are almost always derogatory with negative connotation. “That lady is a whale!”and “You dirty dog!” are often used terms referring to a heavy set person or a sneaky, deceiving person. Animals are not ill-mannered species unless provoked, usually by humans themselves. It is offensive to name impolite humans the names of caring and intelligent animals.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/superjoker/news/?a=8398

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/raim0007/gwss3307_fall2007/2007/09/

Raw Consumerism

Prof. Bump

E379 Animal Humanities

29 February 2010

Raw Consumerism

   Seventh grade history was my first exposure to the rapid-spreading epidemic that stretched like a disease across post World War II America: Consumerism. Although the rest of the world was in turmoil and aftershock from the deadliest war to of all time, America embraced this recovery as a time to strengthen its own economy by taking advantage of the other world markets that were hungry for U.S-produced products. The American economy boomed with fashion, innovative technologies and wild growth of real estate.  Families strived for normalcy and were eager to catch up with the Jones’ way of life. Pressure towards conformity hit the American white and blue-collar citizens like a tidal wave across the country. A consumerism frenzy fueled by pent up demand lead to a dilution of the horrific war tragedies and magnification of the flourishing economy at hand. According to the History of Purina, “The 1950s [were] often simplified as a time of great conformity, a time when everybody wanted to act, think, talk, and dress the same…Mass consumerism [was] fueled by fast foods, credit cards, TV dinners and the golden age of television. High-tech electronics based on the transistor become a part of industry and daily life…In agriculture, productivity soar[ed] with the ‘Green Revolution’ and new technologies. Far fewer farmers produce[d] more than ever before”[1]. The “perfect family” complete with station wagon and golden retriever was the ideal lifestyle and the yearning of most Americans. The newspapers of 1949, as well as my current US history books, are glittered with the smiling faces of home-buyers and shelves filled with tail-wagging puppies, ready to decorate and add life to these new homes. During this time of sweeping social changes, idealized styles were exposed in the media and quickly translated into individuals’ lives. As prosperity for the American people flourished, a revolution of tragic hardship began for those with no voice and this uprising would last for decades with little to no recognition.

  As monopolies dominated the burst in crop consumerism, small farmers responded by searching for a new cash crop to fill their budgeting needs. The hasty demand for puppies that was accelerated with post WWII conformity lead small farmers of the Midwest to develop the first commercial puppy breeding kennels. Backed by the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, this alternative source of income was seen as a mere piece of cultivation and a marginal cash crop.  The puppy market skyrocketed once these dog farmers began capitalizing on the sales of young dogs to department stores such as Sears and Roebuck & Co. As the demand for puppies increased, supply increased as well. With little to no concern of where the puppies came from consumers ignorantly purchased and homed. With no responsibility to the buyers or to the pets themselves, stores paid little attention to the previous states of living of the animals. Due to the lack of awareness, or perhaps mere carelessness, as to what kind of environment the products came from, the living conditions, emotional and physical health became of secondary importance to their producers.  The term “puppy mill” was coined in 1966 as a “commercial dog breeding facility that is operated with an emphasis upon profits above animal welfare and is often in substandard conditions regarding the well-being of dogs in their care”[2] (Link to living conditions and dog exploitation video: http://www.metacafe.com/w/180408/ ).By this definition, a puppy mill is a production company. Its products are not considered as lives, but rather as objects, as mere profit. The exploitation of the dogs housed and bred in puppy mills does not stop with little attention from their owner but presents these animals with poor living conditions going beyond what the mind can fathom. As many as eight dogs being crammed into a living three by four foot chicken wire-bottomed cage is nothing out of the ordinary at a puppy mill. 

The female dogs contained at these production sites are given inhabitable conditions to live in and rarely escape this dirty, unfulfilling life. The mothers, also known as the “breeding stock”[3] are caged in minuscule areas with little food to be continually bred as long as they are fertile with little hope to ever have human companionship. Once the breeding stocks are no longer able to produce for their owners, they are either killed or sent to another mill where they will be once more raped of their own dignity until no more money can be squeezed from their lifeless, starving bodies. Many people “rescue…mature females destined to be shot because they were of no more value to the owners”[4]. Puppies that are sold out of puppy mills are solely sent to large corporation sites or sold through a middle man. With this strategy there is little to no contact or visibility to the outside world of the inhumane treatment of animals within a puppy mill. With this lack of interaction with the consumers, the future owners of these puppies remain unaware of their backgrounds and proceed to naively purchase an emotionally and physically unstable animals who were weaned from their mothers at the young ages of 5 weeks. Unwanted merchandise, puppies that are not ideal for the current marketplace, are nonchalantly killed off with no concern as to their pain or suffering.

   These concentration camps for dogs are a hidden and very real part of American history that is steadily keeping pace in today’s society as well.  A slowly increasing awareness has prompted the government to take modest action towards better treatment of puppy-producing animals. Starting with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966, which set “minimal standards for the care, housing, sale and transport of dogs, cats, primates, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs and other animals held by animal dealers or laboratories”[5], the general public became more conscious of the utilization of dogs in hidden mills but government passed acts do not suffice for the reinforcement and protection of these innocent animals. The Puppy Lemon Law was the first “Dog Purchaser Protection Act made pet stores financially responsible for sick animals purchased from them. Since then, 17 states have enacted similar laws, all of which give dog purchasers the right to return a sick or dead puppy for a refund or replacement”[6] .Yes, these acts are steps in the correct direction to advancing the awareness and protection of puppies and their mothers, but they simply do not encompass the necessary backing or action to fill their intentions. Despite these laws put into action by the federal and local governments, the chain of cruelty continues due to the lack of active action taken. Under present government-ruled kennel regulations, an astonishing amount of atrocious treatment is still permitted such as no human socialization with the kennel dogs or the puppies, no exercise, no resting periods between litters and there are no limitations on the number of litters a female can produce”[7]. It is a complete and utter lie to believe that puppies purchased from pet stores came from loving, cared for homes because according to the Texas Society For The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, SPCA, 98% of these dogs come from inhumane puppy mills and are more often than not accompanied with unaddressed emotional and/or physical problems. The only way to shut down these puppy mills is to completely halt the demand on these animals. According to the laws of supply and demand, “the quantity demanded is the amount of a product people are willing to buy at a certain price and the quantity supplied is the amount if a certain good producers are willing to supply when receiving a certain price”[8]. If the demand on puppies stops completely, the puppy producers will no longer have the ability to supply because they will not have the resources financially to continue their dirty ventures nor will the pet stores have the desire to continue purchasing from the dealers. This chain reaction beginning with the refrainment of the consumer will save the lives of millions of puppies and birthing mothers every year. Immediate effects of this goal will be heartbreaking in that many of these wide-eyed, innocent puppies may be killed because the pet stores may be overwhelmingly over stocked in this department of merchandise. This immediate heartbreak will lead to a breakthrough in the unveiling of these inappropriate breeding centers and will ultimately force the government to place strict enforce rules upon the breeding of puppies including housing, feeding and social interaction imperatives. As an ultimate goal, I hope that we, as a country of consumers, will change the allowances of inhumane treatment of dogs by raping this industry of any fidelity and success that they may have now so that they are forced to shut down their operations for good.

   As a seemingly nationwide epidemic, the desire to help innocent animals sure is brushed under the rug a lot. In an attempt to take action and take steps towards what we can easily talk about, I propose that we, as a nation begin shutting down these puppy mills one at a time, through individual and group support of the humane treatment of dogs. The first step that should be taken at an individual level to stop these sadistic reproducing standards, is the refusal to purchase a puppy from any commercial establishment. It is difficult to ignore to innocent faces of the neglected animals, because if they go unpurchased, they will be disposed of.  But in order to move forward in preventing these acts, some puppies may have to be sacrificed in the process. As an alternative to purchasing puppies from commercial retailers, adopt from the humane society, saving a life rather than promoting the abusive production of a life. In addition to discontinuing of purchasing probably puppy mill-produced puppies, we ought to be fully aware of our animal cruelty laws so that we can report any violations to the ASPCA and seek immediate action to submit justice to the guilty and to the victims. In addition to being up to date on animal cruelty laws, it is also an essential step towards removal of puppy mills to be knowledgeable in facts about puppy mills. Communities respond to the educated. Being a well-learned person in this movement will strengthen people’s trust in your ideas and give them reason to fight for the same cause along side with you. Administering flyers, speaking on radio stations or making bumper stickers are all moving and public ways to make your community aware. Because most of the puppy mill prevention laws instilled to date were in response to Mobile Animal CSI raids and successful busts of puppy mills in action, I propose that in order to maintain momentum of the government’s participation in the mission to prevent puppy mill success, we as a community ought to picket to instill laws allowing the CSI to not only require licensing for puppy breeders, but to allow frequent and unannounced checks on the environment and treatment of their dogs. By enforcing and strengthening the laws preventing inhumane treatment by puppy breeders, a fear will be instilled in them that can potentially impede the ease to which they run their production sites. Making yourself aware is the first step, followed by taking individual action. The next step is educating your community, which will result in the community taking action. With a large population taking preventative action on such a consumer-based business will surely destroy production, in turn exterminating their existence.

   A bay horse from once told Black Elk Speaks, “take this [wooden cup full of water]. It is the power to make live, and it is yours…Take this [bow]…It is the power to destroy, and it is yours[9]” (221).  It is our responsibility to speak for those with no voice. Puppies and breeding mothers across the country are living in callous conditions and being unjustly exploited and we, as consumers are currently promoting the heinous capitalization and disposal of helpless dogs. We have the power to make live and to destroy. As of late, we are choosing to destroy by simply complying and remaining oblivious to dastardly treatment of living creatures. By taking action, I will change the lives of puppies and mother dogs across the nations. I will make live.

Word Count with Quotes: 2004

Word Count without Quotes: 1,709

Figures:

1. http://www.buyvintageads.com/index.php?query=+dogs&start=1&perpage=50

2. http://dogspired.com/tag/puppy-mills/

3. http://www.freewebs.com/lasvegaspetadoptions/

4. http://www.petside.com/info/wellness/adoption-rescue/fighting-dogs.htm

---

[1] Société des Produits Nestlé S.A, "World War II and The Post War Boom,"

Purina Dog Food, http://www.purina.com/company/postwar.aspx (accessed March 28,

2010).

[2] The United States Humane Society, "Puppy Mills - Confronting Cruelty,"

The Humane Society of The United States, http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/

puppy_mills/ (accessed March 29, 2010).

[3] "SPCA of Texas Seizes 65 Neglected Dogs and One Cat from Hunt County

Property," SPCA of Texas, http://www.spca.org/site/

News2?page=NewsArticle&id=28587&news_iv_ctrl=1481 (accessed March 29, 2010).

[4] Joan Banks, Second Chances: Inspiring Stories of Dog Adoption, 1., 4th ed.

(n.p.: Adams Media, 2008),

[5] "Puppy Mills," The Humane Society of The United States,

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/puppy_mills/ (accessed March 28, 2010).

[6] "Dog Purchaser Protection Act," Puppy Lemon Act Law,

http://home.paonline.com/pfdc/ACT27S.HTM (accessed March 29, 2010).

[7] "What Current Pennsylvania Kennel Regulations Allow ," United Against

Puppy Mills, http://www.unitedagainstpuppymills.org/allow.html (accessed March

29, 2010).

[8] "Investopedia," Economics Basics: Supply and Demand,

http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp (accessed March

29, 2010).

[9] Neihardt, John G. Black Elk Speaks., 221. Albany : State University of New York

     Press, 1932.

Raw Consumerism

Raw Consumerism

Panel Discussion

In three very different takes on the same essential idea of animal rights and their relations to humans, Professor Bump, Professor Styles and Dr. Darwin (I could never seem to catch his name, therefore I will refer to him for now as Dr. Darwin) each presented a unique dissection (no pun intended) into allusionary books. Dr. Darwin delved into the idea that “Human expression is rooted in animal behavior”. This idea was furthered by the theory that just as animals pursue their prey and stay alive based on their advantageous survival genes just as humans may attack certain prey in order to keep themselves alive and pass down their genes. Animals are to humans, just as humans are to animals. Dr. Darwin promoted the idea that human actions initially derived from those of the animal-which brings up the question: is eating meat a form of cannibalism?

   A panel discussion with Professor Bump as a speaker would never be complete without documentation and discussion of the Alice books and their relation to animal cruelty. Bump emphasized that “there is no differentiation between human and animal slaves”.

Alice is used in these novels as a murderer, even of innocent babies in the case of the pigeon eggs. She threatens and implements specieistic qualities throughout the novel, yet many of these animal cruelty plots were dismissed when it came to the newest Alice movie. The white queen of Alice and Wonderland is the seemingly better half of the queen sisters (white and red queens). While the red queen portrays the quality of flat out animal cruelty, the white queen “tales of vow to never harm any living thing”. Although the white queen makes this proclamation very well known, she is still willing to allow Alice to harm a living thing, the Jabberwocky. The white queen actually tells Alice to kill the Jabberwocky justifying this act because she herself is not harming anything, but instead it is Alice, who has never taken this vow, who will instill harm. If this is the mindset of a pro-animal rights character, what does this insinuate about vegetarianism? If we are not the person doing the killing of the cow, are we allowed to eat a steak? Yes, we may take a vow never to hurt any living thing, but what about another person doing the hurting, and us merely benefitting, just as the white queen would benefit from Alice killing the Jabberwocky? Does this cross the line, or is it justifiable just as the killing of the Jabberwocky is justified by the white queen?

   The final speaker, Anne Styles, particularly sparked my interest in her discussion and comparison of Dracula to vivisection scientist, David Ferrier. David Frierrer was a scientist who did experiments correlating certain activities to different regions of the brain. He used dogs and monkeys as his subjects and his findings were historic and proved to exponentially further human medicine and save many lives. The 1876 Antivivisection Act restricted many doctors and scientists from performing vivisection experiments, requiring a specific permit to perform these experiments. These liscenses were very restrictive and did not allow vivisection to be done merely for the purpose of teaching or for the subjects to be monkeys or dogs. In the case of Ferrier, monkey and dog subjects was justified as reasonable only because it saved so many lives. This begs the objection; where is this line drawn and how many human lives is enough to sacrifice the lives of innocent animals?

There were three criteria to which stipulated Styles’ comparison of Dracula and Ferrier. They both electrically stimulated brains of living things, they both hypnotize their subjects and they both sacrifice these victims. Dracula was an “amalgath of neurologists who dissect living animals”.   The “electrical stimulation” that Dracula used was not with electricity as used by Ferrier, but rather telepathically, which in those days was thought to involve the emission of electric waves interacting from brain to brain.

   Authors often use characters in books to exemplify hot topics of utmost importance here in the real world. The three speakers of the panel did an outstanding job in connecting the parallels of fiction and nonfiction versus reality and bringing to front the ideas of animal cruelty and equality.

http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=961

http://www.draculas.info/gallery/picture_of_bram_stokers_dracula_1902_doubleday-89/

In three very different takes on the same essential idea of animal rights and their relations to humans, Professor Bump, Professor Styles and Dr. Darwin (I could never seem to catch his name, therefore I will refer to him for now as Dr. Darwin) each presented a unique dissection (no pun intended) into allusionary books. Dr. Darwin delved into the idea that “Human expression is rooted in animal behavior”. This idea was furthered by the theory that just as animals pursue their prey and stay alive based on their advantageous survival genes just as humans may attack certain prey in order to keep themselves alive and pass down their genes. Animals are to humans, just as humans are to animals. Dr. Darwin promoted the idea that human actions initially derived from those of the animal-which brings up the question: is eating meat a form of cannibalism?
A panel discussion with Professor Bump as a speaker would never be complete without documentation and discussion of the Alice books and their relation to animal cruelty. Bump emphasized that “there is no differentiation between human and animal slaves”. Alice is used in these novels as a murderer, even of innocent babies in the case of the pigeon eggs. She threatens and implements specieistic qualities throughout the novel, yet many of these animal cruelty plots were dismissed when it came to the newest Alice movie. The white queen of Alice and Wonderland is the seemingly better half of the queen sisters (white and red queens). While the red queen portrays the quality of flat out animal cruelty, the white queen “tales of vow to never harm any living thing”. Although the white queen makes this proclamation very well known, she is still willing to allow Alice to harm a living thing, the Jabberwocky. The white queen actually tells Alice to kill the Jabberwocky justifying this act because she herself is not harming anything, but instead it is Alice, who has never taken this vow, who will instill harm. If this is the mindset of a pro-animal rights character, what does this insinuate about vegetarianism? If we are not the person doing the killing of the cow, are we allowed to eat a steak? Yes, we may take a vow never to hurt any living thing, but what about another person doing the hurting, and us merely benefitting, just as the white queen would benefit from Alice killing the Jabberwocky? Does this cross the line, or is it justifiable just as the killing of the Jabberwocky is justified by the white queen?
The final speaker, Anne Styles, particularly sparked my interest in her discussion and comparison of Dracula to vivisection scientist, David Ferrier. David Frierrer was a scientist who did experiments correlating certain activities to different regions of the brain. He used dogs and monkeys as his subjects and his findings were historic and proved to exponentially further human medicine and save many lives. The 1876 Antivivisection Act restricted many doctors and scientists from performing vivisection experiments, requiring a specific permit to perform these experiments. These liscenses were very restrictive and did not allow vivisection to be done merely for the purpose of teaching or for the subjects to be monkeys or dogs. In the case of Ferrier, monkey and dog subjects was justified as reasonable only because it saved so many lives. This begs the objection; where is this line drawn and how many human lives is enough to sacrifice the lives of innocent animals? There were three criteria to which stipulated Styles’ comparison of Dracula and Ferrier. They both electrically stimulated brains of living things, they both hypnotize their subjects and they both sacrifice these victims. Dracula was an “amalgath of neurologists who dissect living animals”. The “electrical stimulation” that Dracula used was not with electricity as used by Ferrier, but rather telepathically, which in those days was thought to involve the emission of electric waves interacting from brain to brain.
Authors often use characters in books to exemplify hot topics of utmost importance here in the real world. The three speakers of the panel did an outstanding job in connecting the parallels of fiction and nonfiction versus reality and bringing to front the ideas of animal cruelty and equality.

http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=961
http://www.draculas.info/gallery/picture_of_bram_stokers_dracula_1902_doubleday-89/

Undeniable

Facing topics of difficult nature or controversial descent has never been of high priority for the human race. Tending to thorny, debated issues us often brushed under the rug, Why? Why does the species who claims dominion over all others fear facing simple truths and realities such as the undeniable parallels between human slavery and treatment of animals?

Torture of slaves and animals

The similarities between the lives of the slaves and the lives of animals is nearly irrefutable. According to Jeremy Bentham, there are two “sorts…of agents that at the same time that they are under the influence of man’s direction, are susceptible to happiness: Other human beings who are styled persons…and other animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things” (756).


Chains are symbols of African American Slavery

Humans as a species as well as individual races around the globe are guilty of racism, “a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures” as well as speciesism, “a belief that different species of animals are significantly different from one another in their capacities to feel pleasure and pain and live an autonomous life” (762). Both of these superiority complexes thrive on the idea that their own species or race has the “right to rule and use the others” (762). Marjorie Speigel points out in her book The Dreaded Comparison the cut and dry, so obvious if they were snakes they would have bitten you, parallels between slavery-related sufferings of black people and the “ sufferings of animals lost in the machinery of modern institutionalized cruelty” (770). “…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).


In “Am I Blue?” Alice Walker steps over the line of speciesism and gives animals the characteristic that specicesists claim that they are lacking. Walker gives human qualities to an animal, completely realisticly, voiding any justification of speciesism. Blue, a horse who lives next door to Walker, is described as being “horribly lonely and bored” with “depth of feeling one could see in [his] eyes” (760). As mentioned earlier, speciesism is based off of the idea that an animal’s lack of the capacity to feel pain, pleasure or emotions. In Walker’s work, she completely null’s this theory because she is exemplifying passionate feelings and emotions within an animal that are normally given to humans. Walker describes Blue as “a crazed person” with “ a look so piercing, so full of grief, a look so human…and to think that there are people who do not know that animals suffer” (760).

http://www.animalslavery.net/
http://veggiemo.com/factsandthoughts.htm