My favorite line of Dobie’s piece called “The Mustangs” is the first: “The earth does not think and does not care what people think, but it gives and takes with undeviating justice, and it remembers.”
The significance of this line, to me, is that that earth sees us all as being equal. It does not pick or choose who has greater reason or greater agility and it certainly does not distinguish between man and animal. The earth is frustratingly uncontrollable. No matter how many buildings we construct, how many grounds we cement, or how many living beings we eliminate, the earth will never belong to us.
But what is most powerful about this line is that it does not accuse the earth of anything – it admits that there is “justice” to everything the earth does. It is our responsibility, then, to take what the earth gives us without complaint or resentment.
What seemed so fascinating about the Mustang to me is that, despite its size, it treads far lighter on this earth than we ever will. At a massive 850 pounds, the Mustang Dobie describes seems gentle and free. He, like the earth, cannot be contained.
Mustangs: True Companions of this Earth
Dobie expresses that mustangs, with all their freedom, are true acceptors of this earth: “The sight of wild horses streaming across the prairies made even the most hardened of professional mustangers regret putting an end to their liberty. The mustang was essentially a prairie animal, like the antelope, and like it would not go into a wooded bottom of a canyon except for water and shelter...He relied upon motion, not covert, for the maintenance of liberty.” The mustang, unlike man, accepts the earth for what it is. He does not hide under the canyon the way many humans hide in buildings, but instead fearlessly faces the earth. He knows he cannot find freedom in hiding.
These cityscapes have become our landscapes, and exist because of our resistance to be companions with the earth
The notion of the free mustang is as fascinating as it is fearsome. As humans, we seem to want to control the ground we tread on. We want to believe that this world belongs to us – not to the trees, the insects, or the animals that inhabit it. But watching the mustangs, Dobie reveals to us that even the mustangers admire the animal’s inability to be contained. He is a true citizen of this earth.
Dobie writes that “Only the sense of being in place gives natural horse or natural man contentment.” This line is perhaps the most important piece of advice Dobie offers the reader. He suggests that contentment for horses and humans cannot be found in “covert.” On this uncontrollable earth, it is our responsibility to find ourselves “in place” and realize that it is the buildings we construct and the living beings we destroy that makes us “out of place” in a world as free as it is unforgiving.
I began this class as a human. For me, at the time, being a human meant being a leader of this earth. At the top of the food chain, I saw everything before me as being meant for me. There was no animal, no insect, no other living being that could stand superior to a human. Everything on this earth belonged to us.
I thought I held the world in my hands, never considering that it is the earth that holds us.
Then I saw Earthlings. I was not ready to see the excruciating pain these animals were subject to. Moreoever, I was not ready to feel what I felt when I saw them suffer. I felt ashamed. I felt terrified. I felt I was no longer human. I resisted these feelings throughout the semester. I tried to forget the cows I saw slaughtered, the chickens that were ruthlessly debeaked, and the circus elephants beaten for the pure pleasure of the "human" audience. But the more I read, the less I could deny their suffering. If I wanted to feel "human" again, I knew I would have to make a change in how I treated animals. Often, throughout the semester, I have negotiated the line between animal and human. Whether or not the two are the same or are destined to be forever distinguished from one another now seems irrelevant. They will forever be related for the mere fact that they are both living beings on this earth. This fact is undeniable. While the level of consciousness of an animal or the linguistic meaning of the word "animal" itself may be enlightening, the best way a human can learn to appreciate an animal is to learn how to share this earth. Every leader presented in this course has been described in light of their relationships with animals. In the "Miracle of Purun Bhagat" from the Jungle Books, we know that Purun Bhagat is kind becuase he "had never in his life tasted meat and very seldom eaten even fish"(170). According to Purun Dass, "It was all one...Earth, people, and food were all one"(171). This line, to me, is reminiscent of the definition of "earthling" presented at the beginning of the film, Earthlings. To be an "earthling" is to be a fellow being of this earth. The name makes no distinction between animal, insect, or human -- they are all merely living beings. Beyond learning what it means to be a human, what this class and perhaps the Jungle Books seeks to express, is how to learn to be a leader. It seems significant that Kipling offers us perhaps the most compelling vision of a leader in "The White Seal." While we have certainly seen the leadership of humans like Mowgli and Purun Bhagat, the leadership of Kotick may be the most relevant. He is told at the beginning of the story by his own mother that he "'will never be able to stop the killing'"(78). Nevertheless, he adventures through the world fearlessly, determined to find a safe place for the seals. His struggle is perhaps most relevant to ours as humans because the fight to indeed "stop the killing" -- the mass murder of billions upon billions of animals -- often seems hopeless. Just as this "killing" has been so intertwined and accepted within the seal culture, so has the suffering of animals for the human culture. Maybe if humans were as bold as this white seal, we could all hold our heads this high
If I began this class as a "human" I will leave it as an "Earthling" and a true leader of this earth. Being a leader is not composed of merely being at the top of a food chain. It is composed of both the little tasks such as not eating meat or appreciating the other bengs that surround us and the larger task of fighting against what others deem to be the inevitable. Animal suffering is not necessary -- it only occurs because we have not been lead or have not chosen to lead ourselves down a different path.
If you are like I was the first time I went to the circus, you are spellbound by the amazing tricks these animals are taught to do. You imagine all animals are like the ones found here, dancing and happy. You might wonder how exactly these elephants came to learn how to do such amazing tricks. But, having no experience interacting with elephants and seeing the ease with which they dance, you assume the transition from wild beast to circus animal is a fluid, easy one.
You are wrong.
Beneath the fancy lights and beyond a pair of dancing elephants sits a little man in the middle of this video, following the elephants with a bull hook. He has beaten these animals enough that they would rather climb on each other’s backs and balance their feet along a stool than be touched by his whip or his hook. This tiny man carries the show yet sits behind its curtain. But it is he who we should be most fascinated and appalled by – the most spectacular beast on stage.
Now, what do you see when you watch this video?
[2]
It took me three months of class in Animal Humanities and this movie to finally see the link between human compassion and animal treatment. I will never be able to forget the voice of the man cursing and beating at the poor, helpless elephant named Becky forced to do inane and unnatural tricks. Watching the video, I instantly knew this man had no compassion and certainly no sense of ethics. I did not need to witness his interaction with humans to know that. I knew from the tone of his voice, the violent crack of his whip, and his abusive treatment of a helpless animal that this man was worse than the worst kind of beast – he was a man without humanity.
These handlers have given the power they had as humans over to a bull hook and a sharp whip. I do not want to lead my relationship with animals by force like these men have. I want to lead my life with the power virtues bring, specifically through compassion and moderation towards animals.
Considering my daily routine, moderation seems the most challenging virtue I could reach for. This past week, I decided to write down daily about my interactions, either directly or indirectly, with animals. The entries are mostly brief lists, looking something like this:
I. shower – new shampoo and conditioner; animal testing 2.Cereal with Milk for Breakfast 3. Ordered Starbucks Latte 4. Wore leather belt and new leather wallet 5. Woman with seeing-eye dog on the bus 6. New “animal rights” posters hanging above Dottie’s desk (my boss), reading “We may be the only lawyers whose clients are all innocent) 7. Dottie eating a hot dog (ironic?) 8. Drove to the Yogurt Spot (car has leather seats) 9. Roommates make chicken tacos for dinner
Day after day, I had lists similar to these. But as the week continued on, they seemed to grow shorter and shorter. The milk I was drinking at the beginning of the week, in particular, came to give me a nauseous feeling every time I poured it into a bowl of cereal. Seeing these lists showed me that the first and most virtuous way I can treat animals is through moderation. The amount of consumption of animal products in these lists seems not only excessive, but also unappreciative.
I am, by no means, an animal rights activist or even a full-blown vegetarian. I have grown up my entire life eating meat and using animal products. The turn from thoughtless consumer to virtuous human has been a slow, almost excruciating process for me. I am beginning to realize, however, that learning to act ethically is a gradual and slow process consisting of these small decisions. These entries in my journal document not only my interaction with animals, but also decisions to act ethically or unethically. The lists grew smaller by the end of the week, but my number of choices remained the same. By the fourth day, my Starbucks’ “non-fat London Fog Tea Latte” became a “soy London Fog Tea Latte.” By the fifth, I was making black bean tacos for dinner. By the sixth, I purchased new shampoo and conditioner – ones that promised no “animal testing” on the backs of their bottles. By the seventh, I even turned down eating frozen yogurt at the “Yogurt Spot” with my roommates – my favorite spot for a snack. These choices, when taken individually, seem almost insignificant. But combined, they form a genuine shift towards moderation.
But moderation means more to me than just literally reducing my consumption; it means moving towards a larger respect for animals in general. Because these animals are essentially unable to communicate with us, we have deemed them entirely voiceless. Jacques Derrida writes that because of animals’ inability to “respond,” humans have been able to narrow a vast spectrum of living creatures into one category – “the Animal”(228).[3] The title seems to give humans entitlement to treat animals carelessly, consuming meat and animal products with no reference for the animals who suffered to provide such luxuries. Moreover, our extremely high demand for such products reflects the lack of importance we place on their existence because of this entitlement we have created. I am suggesting, therefore, that by emphasizing moderation, all animals be treated with more respect and consideration.
Still, respect does not come easily when these titles of “man” and “animal” continue exist. How can I respect what I cannot understand or have been taught does not understand me? Here is where compassion takes on its central role, since it is defined as “suffering together with another." Following this virtue requires more than sitting on the sidelines, feeling a distant sympathy for animals. Compassion forces us to move beyond these barriers, such as speech, and suffer with the animals we have made to suffer.
But it seems easier to feel such compassion for certain animals in certain situations. When I watched Becky, the elephant from Earthlings, being beaten by her cruel handler, my eyes filled to the brim with tears. Never have I cried so quickly or so easily over an animal I have never interacted with. I knew then, at that exact moment, that I was capable of a level of compassion for animals I previously thought impossible. If I could feel Becky’s suffering, I thought, certainly I could feel the suffering of other animals. On the other hand, part of the reason why her suffering perhaps struck me so much is that it seemed needless. An animal being abused for purely recreational reasons, through such forms of entertainment as the rodeo or the circus, seems the least moderate and compassionate way to treat animals. These animals are tortured for the pure pleasure of the audience. Surely, if these people were exercising even slight moderation, they would see that any excess use of animals as mere toys disgraces the animal. More importantly, however, if they exhibited any form of compassion they would feel the animals’ pain instead of being entertained by it.
So what about the meat and animal products we use on a daily basis? Surely, if we are going to apply compassion and moderation to circus and rodeo animals, we should apply it to all treatment of animals. I do not support the violent treatment of innocent beings and yet, somehow I have come to rely on their suffering for my own comforts – milk, shampoo, leather clothing. To let go of such comforts is surely not an easy transition. Moreover, by suggesting complete abandonment of all these comforts, it seems more likely that people will give up on “animal rights” all together. There is an adequate compromise to be made here: a gradual transition into both compassion and moderation.
There is a group called the “Virtues Project” that offers “programs, training, and materials” designed to make all citizens “live by their highest values”[4]. More than just discussing broad virtues, they offer life-skill strategies for people seeking to improve their lives and themselves. I feel strongly that there should be a similar network and forum of discussion for virtuous treatment of animals. Such a program would serve to create a more informed and ethical community. Each choice we make is not only personal, but also a symptom of the society that surrounds us. It seems especially important, then, to create a moderate program that appeals to a broader audience. The program would not force upon citizens the immediate shift to vegetarianism or veganism, but rather offer suggestions to make a smoother transition into this new lifestyle. The program may include every aspect of becoming more animal-conscious, such as choosing products that are not animal tested and diet plans that stress moderation of consumption of meat and dairy.
As for me, I am starting small. Practicing moderation has proven to be even more difficult than practicing compassion. Becky from Earthlings and the compassion I felt for her may have ripped the blindfold from my eyes, but it is my choice now what to do with this new vision. “Animal rights” is perhaps one of the hardest topics to defend because their suffering has been so intricately and coyly weaved into our culture. Every time we sit down to eat, take a trip to Starbucks or the mall, or even wash our hair we are making decisions about animals. But the bigger issue is that we are making decisions about humans, as well. It is our compassion and our choice to consume in moderation, respecting the sources of these luxuries, that determines our virtue. Ironically, it is in finally learning to care for animals that I feel I am finally learning what it means to be human.
Word Count without Quotes: 1620
[1]"UniverSoul Circus - Dancin' Elephants," 15 May 2008, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTkLnn6qMuY (accessed 15 Mar 2009). [2]"Circus Elephants: Training and Tragedy, 15 Nov 2007, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZF_KvjhL18 (accessed 15 Mar 2009). [3]Derrida, Jacques. "The Animal That Thefore I Am(Following)." Critical Inquiry 28 (1997): 369-419. [4]"Frequently Asked Questions." The Virtues Project. 2001. 27 Mar. 2009.
There is a sign off of I-35 I see every time I pass between Dallas and Austin. It reads "Robertson's Real Beef Jerky" in bright white letters against a deep red background. Under the billboard sits an expansive field -- filled with cattle. A funny irony I thought at first glace of the sign -- surely Robertson's wouldn't have wanted to show consumers literally the cows that were going to be slaughtered to make this so-called "real beef jerky." But the sign has sat in that exact spot for three semesters now -- over a year and a half. It is no mistake. Now realizing the deliberate choice Robertson's made, I turn my head away when I pass the sign. It only seems a morbid and offensive tactic to sell meat.
Robertson's Real Beef Jerky...Does this image make it any more appealing?
But Robertson's is not the only company that seeks to present an "authentic" version of the animals they slaughter as an advertisement ploy for their animal products. Other companies often present images of animals in open fields, calmly chewing grass or roaming along. Certainly, if they showed the cages or slaughterhouses, we would be far less inclined to consume their products.
In "Am I Blue?" the author makes note that these animals become "for us merely 'images' of what they once so beautifully expressed. And we are used to drinking milk from containers showing 'contented' cows, whose real lives we weant 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'(8). These "images" are significant because they demonstrate how we justify the often cruel decision to eat meat. Moreover, these images have become necessary because the truth is, if we had to slaughter our own meat, we might all just turn vegetarian. One advertisement campaign, in particular, comes to mind. The tagline goes something like this: "Great cheese comes from happy cows and happy cows come from California." The video below depicts so-called "happy cows" singing in an expansive, green field.
The ridiculousness of this video is hard to deny. Here we are presented with an "image" of the life of a "happy" cow so we can feel better about eating them. The commercial is perhaps even more morbid than the Robertson's billboard sign because it presents an image of a cow's life that is not even remotely existent. Certainly, California's cows are not singing in free roaming fields -- they are being slaughtered in factories. It is a completely dimented vision of what a cow feels, where it lives, and how it comes to be slaughtered and then placed on shelves in grocery stores. So what do we lose by transforming these animals from living beings to mere "images" of what they once were. This question becomes one of the central topics in Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? As the line between animal and machine becomes increasingly thin, Milt notes the one distinction that remains between the two: "Living animals do die; that's one of the risks in owning them. We're just not used to it because we see all the fakes"(78). Whether it be a pet or the very cattle that we eat, humans seem extremely reluctant to face the death of animals. It seems strange to say that it is because of compassion for animals that we create campaigns that only present "images" and not facts. But if we did not feel compassion for animals, there would be no place for advertisements like Robertson's or California Cheese's.
If everyone saw the images of animal's real environments, the way they are actually treated, or the way in which they are brutally and inhumanely slaughtered, the compassionate certainly would not be inclined to buy beef jerky, cheese, or any other animal product.
Where these "happy" cattle end up -- slaughterhouses
But these are images we will never be shown by media. We're not used to seeing the images of animals dying because all we see are the "fakes" -- animals that not only look artificial, but talk and act like humans.
So here we have all these companies advertising "real beef jerky" and "real California cheese" with no reference to the real lives of animals. But the truth is, it is ultimately our decision whether to believe these images or look beyond what is presented to us. Finally, it is our choice to stop eating meat and decide to give these animals the "happy" lives we so wish they had.
Black Beauty gives me a tremendous feeling of heaviness each time I sit down to read it. The more the novel continues on, the more confined Black Beauty becomes. He comes to not only carry the weight of a saddle or the tension of a bearing rein, but also the pressures of men who cannot or perhaps will not acknowledge his worth. Time and time again, Black Beauty presents the reader with the useleness of abuse and human's disacknoledgment of a horse's capabilities. When Black Beauty is talking to Max, a horse he shares the carriage with, Max tells him that he wears a tight rein because he "must," but that "it is shortening [his] life"(88). It becomes apparent, almost immediately, that the unnatural circumstances humans inflict on horses does nothing for the animal's benefit. Everything is solely a tradition or form of style. Animals are left to bear the weight of such frivolous ideas of animal beauty created by, but often not felt by, humans.
But perhaps the most important thing to be said about such tight constraints is the effects it comes to have on Black Beauty's soul, as he later comments that the "rein harrassed [him]," often leaving him not only sore, but also "worn and depressed"(89). What seems ironic about the reins he is forced to wear is that they are meant to keep his head high and what they do in return is turn his head low when they are taken off. Black Beauty reminds up thorughout the novel how capable he is of doing what man wants him to without the use of a whip or a rein. When he rides later on with Jerry, Black Beauty comments that he "had a very good mouth -- that is, [he] could be guided by the slighest touch of the rein"(141). He already knows. The use of such artificial tools does nothing but tear at his dignity and the little freedom that remains.
Reading Black Beauty, I cannot help but rememember the first and only time I rode a horse. The entire event, looking back, seems to be just a large miscommunication -- but not on his part. His name was Applejack and he was known to be one of the steadiest, but perhaps most tempermental horses on the ranch. Needless to say, Applejack was not amused by my lack of riding skills. Riding together, it was him who guided me and not me who guided him. If I said go left, he would sharply make a right. If I pulled the rein to stop, he would begin to trot faster. If I wanted to go, he wanted to eat and did not hesitate to bend his head towards the nearest bush for a nibble. For the first thirty minutes of riding, I felt genuinely terrified. Here was an animal -- a creature I had learned somewhere along the way that I was superior to -- and he was controlling me. But the further we traveled onward, the more I came to realize that if I followed his lead, he would take me exactly where I needed to go. He was the smart one.
Not quite how I looked on my first ride, but the horse here looks extremely similar to Applejack
Although I can by no means defend the maltreatment of Black Beauty throughout the novel, I can, at some level, relate to the level of fear towards animals the men who are responsibile for the abuse feel. They are too scared to let go of the reins because it means they have lost their control. Decoratng their horses like Christmas trees with no acknowledgement of the pain it inflicts or the pride it destroys, they choose to deem themselves superior to the animals they so need.
How would humans feel if they were made to wear such heavy straps?
Possibly like they were in a strait jacket?
It seems significant that Black Beauty never expects complete freedom. He speaks against completely "loose reins" for it "spoils"(108) the horse, suggesting instead that a human should pull on the reins with a slight and gentle touch. As Jerry says to the coachmen who condemn his religiousness and respect for the horses they deem lesser, "If a thing is right, it can be done, and if it is wrong, it can be done without; and a good man will find a way"(150). Certainly, then, whips and bearing reins are as useless to a good man as they are destructive to a horse's dignity.
Good people get cheated, just as good horses get ridden. ~Chinese Proverb
The use of the first person in the tale of Black Beauty can at times cover the windows of insight it seeks to create. I know that the voice is meant to be somewhat hypothetical -- certainly, horses do not converse in the same way that humans do. The voice is at times so "human" that it becomes questionable whether the novel is truly representative of an animal's opinion. Thus a wall cannot help but be constructed because we know, as readers, that the narrative voice is somewhat faulty. At the same time, by giving the horse a voice, the author is constructing a window of insight into a horse's mind and calling for a more ethical treatment of animals. Literally coming from the horse's mouth, the ethical standards of treatment Black Beauty lays out must be taken as truth.
There is a wrong and a right way to treat animals, according to Black Beauty. Even if Black Beauty is confined to wear a bit in his mouth and a saddle across his back, he outlines ethical treatment within such restrictions, noting after that "if any one wants to break in a young horse well, that is the way." "That is the way" suggests that there is no other ethical way for a human to break in a horse. Moreover, because Black Beauty outlines his "breaking in" so specifically, he provides no excuse for people who stray from such an ethical path.
If Black Beauty's word was not enough, the little old man who washes him later in the novel provides further evidence for the reader. After he notes that he can tell how a horse was raised within the first "twenty minutes"(57), he talks of how "fidgety, fretty" and "afraid of you" the ones who were abused are. According to him, "their tempers are mostly made when they are young," making this period of "breaking in" appear extremely crucial to a horse's existence. This combination of human and animal opinion throughout Black Beauty is an extremely effective means of communicating the importance of compassion for animals.
I could read a thousand scientific articles about what distinguishes animal from human. But, in the end, it seems to be books like Black Beauty and films like "Earthlings" that end up mattering for me. I believe that, by and large, ethics is a gut feeling. It is with the nausea I felt watching animals being abused in Earthlings and reading about Ginger's maltreatment in Black Beauty that I know my humanity must rest, at least slightly, on my treatment of animals.
This picture depicts the painful bearing rein Ginger was often forced to wear (on the left), keeping a horse carrying a heavy load from stretching its neck. It is juxtaposed against the "gentle man's horse" who is allowed free movement as it pulls a load.
The most important quote I found to be in Black Beauty is when Black Beauty's master says to Sawyer, a man who has just injured his very own innocent pony, "Mr. Sawyer, that more unmanly brutal treatment of a little pony it was never my painful lot to witness; and by giving way to such passions you injure your own character as much, nay more, than you injure your horse, and remember, we shall all have to be judged according to our works, whether they be towards man or towards beast"(43). This quote captures, to me, the close ties between our humanity and our treatment of animals. It is fascinating to me that he dares to say that the injury the man takes on is far greater than the physical injury he inflicts. By hurting animals, this man has sacrificed his own integrity. He calls the exertion of force exactly the opposite of what Sawyer had intended -- "unmanly." The power this man experiences, hurting an innocent creature, is not only an illusion, but an unknown danger to the man's own humanity.
The more this course carries on, the less I seem to need scientific evidence as to why man is different from animal. I'm not sure that it matters much anymore. Learning that we are all "God's creatures," as Black Beauty notes, or perhaps less spiritually, we are all fellow inhabitants of the earth, the less I care about the differences. For this reason, I ultimately found the "human" voice of Black Beauty to be of little disturbance to me by the end of the first part. I believe that by outlining a specifically and distinctly ethical treatment of animals, the reader is able to distinguish better between what is right and what is wrong. For other readers, however, who may not trust a horse's voice, the alternating perspectives in Black Beauty provide major incentive for the reader to pay attention. While Black Beauty can talk about the pain he feels from such maltreatment, it is perhaps the distinctly negative effects on our humanity that seem the most threatening.
Two things ran across my mind as I read the Pre-1800 Overview: First, how did causes of compassion towards humans come to necessarily affect human compassion towards animals? Secondly, I began to question the author’s fearless use of the word “beast,” a term that seems to set an even greater distinction between animals and humans.
The most important note I believe the author makes in the Pre-1800 Overview is how a growing compassion for humans could not help but “overflow its original bounds and brush with pity the sufferings of other sentient beings” – specifically, “animals began to benefit from this exuberance of compassion”(384). A few times in this class we have discussed the relationship between our treatment of animals and both the antislavery movement and the Holocaust. My gut instinct throughout the class has been to reject such comparisons. I thought that the suggestion that animal suffering is as great as human suffering seemed not only outrageous, but also downright offensive. I also thought it to be a foolish use of history and a desperate attempt to somehow make animal suffering important to humans. This is perhaps why this quote stood out to me. It makes the relation between human suffering and animal suffering undeniable. Humanity is not limited to just the treatment of humans – it does and should extend to our treatment of animals as well. It is fascinating to me that although humans, much like me, often refuse to see the connection between animal and human suffering. If our compassion for animals grew just as our compassion for humans and specifically such movements as that of antislavery, then there is a parallel to be both drawn and then recognized.
Watching the violent treatment of animals throughout the film, “Earthlings,” brings this point home in my opinion. I don’t think I will ever be able to forget the voice of the man cursing and beating at the poor, helpless, elephant forced to do inane and unnatural tricks. Watching the video, I knew this man had no compassion and certainly no sense of ethics. I did not need to witness his interaction with humans to know that. I knew from the tone of his voice, the violent crack of his whip, and his abusive treatment of a helpless animal that this man was worse than the worst kind of beast – he was a man without humanity.
This image shows an elephant being led with a bullhook similar to that I saw the elephant be beaten by in the film "Earthlings."
In regards to my second question reading the Pre-1800 Overview, I was confused as to why, in an article that explicitly discusses the importance of human compassion towards animals, the author would so readily use the word “beast” throughout. Personally, I hate the word beast. I believe, much like the word “brute,” that it transforms a conscious being into a senseless creature. When he writes that “The very process of pushing blacks down toward the beasts tended to bring animals closer to humanity,” he suggests that “beasts” and “animals” are somewhat interchangeable. The irony of this, to me, is that the author points out how an animal lover grew to use the word “brute” because “animals were growing a bit too close for the comfort even of the animal lover”(387). But by this author using the word “beast” throughout the article, he is expressing to me a similar discomfort. When I looked up the word “beast” in the dictionary I saw two definitions: “Any nonhuman animal” and “the crude animal nature common to humans and the lower animals.” Although the author may have only been referring to the first definition, the second definition is what stuck in the back of my mind throughout the article.
Googling the word "Beast," this is one of the first images that showed up. Needless to say, there were no images of puppies, bunnies, or other animals largely deemed "cute" that showed up. Most of the images were a blend between humans and hairy, enormous animals. This, to me, suggests that the second definition I found seems to be the more widely understood use of the word "beast."I believe the word creates a wall between human and animal interaction. The suggestion of animals as “beasts,” to me, suggests that they are also without feeling.
Regardless of my issues with his word choice, however, I found these reading selections to be extremely enlightening. One of my favorite quotes that I read in Hopkin’s selected poems was from “God’s Grandeur” which reads “And all is scared with trade; bleared, smeated with toil; / And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell…” The importance, to me, is not in defining animal suffering as equal to human suffering or in making a distinction between beast, animal, and human, but rather to ensure that our “smudge” is one of compassion. These animals share our earth with us, sharing our scent and feeling our influence, as the poem suggests. If we are truly to be a humane society, then, we must acknowledge the importance of humane treatment of all living, feeling beings. We must, as noted by Locke, be “’tender to all sensible [i.e. sentient] creatures’”(384) or become the “crude” beasts that we so fear.
The most interesting thing I found about William Blake is how he weaves human experience with animal experience, suggesting that they are often intertwined. In his poem, "On Another's Sorrow," he asks, "Can I see a falling tear/ And not feel my sorrow's share?/Can a father see his child/Weep, nor be with sorrow filled?" and then similarly asks in only a stanza later, "And can He who smiles on all/Hear the wren with sorrows small/Hear the small bird's grief and care/Hear the woes that infants bear-"(354). Because Blake is essentially placing God at the top of all that exists, he is creating an umbrella of fatherliness that embraces and embodies every living creature beneath it. He places us all on the same earth, thus making their pain as significant as our pain.
Living Under the Wings of God
It seems to me that there is something different in being a human and being an "earthling," as discussed earlier in the film "Earthlings." The term "human" seems to be a physical differentiation between us and everything else. It builds a wall between ourselves and literally every other species that inhabits the earth. But when we take a broader view of the world -- i.e. the perspective of God that Blake discusses in his poem -- we become "earthlings," fellow creatures of this earth. Though we are specifically built differently, intellectually and physically, ultimately we come together with all other forms of life to constitute one being -- the earth.
But such a perspective is not so easy to understand. We have constituted our entire lives around the idea that we are "human"-- nothing more and certainly nothing else. I believe it is because we have so limited the defintion of what it means to be human that we cannot comprehend what it means to be living. In other words, we cannot place ourselves in other beings such as animals and know what they feel, how they struggle, and where they fit in this world.
Since we are beings that praise knowledge and since we can ultimately have no knowledge of what it literally feels like to be an animal, we can, at times, be fearful of their power. The term, "beast," in particular comes to mind. In "Swamp Thing," the narrator becomes fearful and yet fascinated by snapping turtles. There is one passage, in particular that stuck out to me because it demonstrates the use of the word "beast" to describe animals we cannot understand and our lack of knowledge about what exists beyond us. Harrington writes, "Lamar looked down at this strange beast admiringly. Eugenia seemed to me not aanimal but an entity -- a moving, moss-covered rock. I asked Lamar if alligator snappers were intelligent. What I wondered was: Do they think?"(371). Here I believe captures the doubt humans face as we examine the animal world. We have deemed that only beings that "think" are worth caring for. The scope of animal ability to think and comprehend the world around them has become a means for humans to determine their worth. Ironically, however, it seems that by doing so we are, in turn, less able to "think" and comprehend the world that surrounds us.
I am the vessel that holds all of you. I am the one left stranded here the day you decided to carry on—without the baggage of your past. I am the memories that you pushed violently away at first and then left to drift behind you when you moved too fast for them to catch up. I was there, first walking and then running, behind you to pick up the pieces. But your footsteps are too far ahead for me to reach and I cannot find my way here alone. So I walk now through the deserts of your past, picking up shards of memories that cut like glass and burn like the hot sand under my feet. And it is too late to turn back because, you see, I have no footsteps. The only thing that holds me is the fact that I held you. I am a shadow that lost her way, a loner looking for home, and a vessel cracking on all sides. So I must ask you, if you are so far ahead, where will the sun be to give me my light? Where can I find my map to guide me home? And who will hold the vessel that holds me? I wrote this unsent letter to my sister just one year ago. Originally intended as a journal entry, then a letter, and finally as a reminder of what it is that I am searching for, it became one of the single most important pieces I have ever written. I spent my entire life holding the weight my family felt too burdensome to carry. Their pilgrimage became my pilgrimage, leaving no space for complaint or self-discovery. So when I found myself three hours away from the family that defined me, I lost myself entirely. By the time I left Dallas to come to the University of Texas, my sister’s addiction to cocaine, stays in Juvenile, and constant running away had come to a close. My parent’s marriage had also long since dissipated. But the weight persisted. Furthermore, it allowed me to deem myself defenseless against its influence and surrender my responsibility for myself. Slouching downward, enveloped by my own pain, I walked through this earth with no acknowledgement to the pain that surrounded me – that is, human’s maltreatment of animals. Despite a Montessori education that supposedly promotes human interaction with animals and a precious cat named Maggie, I was unable to realize that I, too, had cracked the vessel that held me.
The ache began the first day I came home after seeing my sister in Juvenile. I cried until my body shook and my shoulders trembled. I cried until the book between my hands dampened and its edges wilted. I cried until my cat, Maggie, came to hold my pain for me. I still do not fully understand how she came to know how to rest herself on my shoulders or to wrap her paws around my neck whenever I began to cry. But I suppose that it is not as important as the fact that she did. With my dad withdrawn in his office and my mom crying in the bedroom, Maggie came to me as my vessel to lift the burden and relieve the ache, if only temporarily. I returned to school that Monday with no urge to talk about what I saw or how I had cried. Instead, I got lost in working with long division beads, shown to the right,[1] and painting in the lunchroom. This pattern continued on throughout elementary and middle school. Each day I came to school, no matter what I witnessed the weekend before or at home at night, and I would walk through the double doors, shake my shoulders free of the baggage and entrench myself in the learning environment.
Long division beads similar to those I used in elementary school
Going to a Montessori school, I worked with natural materials instead of papers and workbooks, demonstrated in the video below.[2] Montessori forced me to realize, mostly through “practical life” activities such as gardening, setting the table, and cooking, how to gain a sense of and responsibility for my surroundings. But the scope of the surroundings I adjusted to through these activities was limited. I felt accountable only for my immediate environment– my home in the suburbs – and not for the larger one – namely, this earth and the species that inhabit it.
As the years carried onward, the more abstract my education became, working less in “practical life” and long division beads, and more with papers and books. Simultaneously, however, I began to have more interactions with nature through class camping excursions and trips to the “Melissa Campus,” a place where we could explore natural Texas wildlife and study about fossils, botany, and water forms. But despite my education in nature, I cannot recall a single encounter with any animals on either of these types of trips. For this reason, Montessori did not instill in me the respect for animals that seemingly a respect for nature would call for. In other words, I appreciated the magnificence of the earth with no knowledge or regard to the animals that inhabited it. Ironically, one of the major goals of Montessori is to put “the child in touch with environment, and [help] him to learn to make intelligent choices and carry out research in a prepared environment.”[3] But I was not in touch with my environment – in fact, I sat so far outside its bounds that I became part of its burden. Animals carried my weight. [4] My shoulders bent so far forward that my eyes turned themselves downward to the cruelty with which I unknowingly treated animals, and now knowingly continue to treat animals, by eating meat and consuming animal products. I “appreciated” my cat, Maggie, while treating her as a pet and not a fellow being. I explored the environment with no notice to the species that inhabited it. I continued to eat meat even after I watched the violent treatment of animals in the film, Earthlings. Too concerned with the burden placed on me, I never realized who I placed the burden on – animals. Moreover, I stood so high atop their shoulders that I could not hear their voices or their cries. There were times, however, that I truly believe I allowed animals to walk by my side and not beneath my heavy feet. When Maggie grew sick from a rare kidney disease, in the mornings before I left for school I would hold her the way she held me. Sometimes I can still hear the sound of her gentle paws scurrying across the tile to come wake me at 7:30 sharp for her brief morning embrace. When her body grew weak and feeble, I would lay her against my chest and rock her until she purred her way into oblivion of all pain, similar to the girl in the picture below.
My Vessel, Maggie [5]
This, I believe, should be the goal of all humans – to have this kind of reciprocal relationship with all animals. Barry Lopez, an author mainly concerned with American Indian tradition and experience, writes in an essay entitled “A Literature of Place” that “It may be more important now to enter into an ethical and reciprocal relationship with everything around us than to continue to work toward the sort of control of the physical world that, until recently, we aspired to.”[6] Just as I lifted her pain, she lifted mine. Maggie loved me with no conditions and nothing for me to hold in exchange for such love – except her. When Maggie passed away in 2005, the absence of her love left me feeling heavier than ever. Similar to the loss John Graves describes in his piece, “Blue and Other Dogs,” the space an animal leaves when it passes away is big.[7] The ache began as soon as I came home after school the day she was put to sleep. I cried until my body shook and my shoulders trembled. I cried until the books between my hands dampened and their edges wilted. I cried, and for the first time in thirteen years, there was no Maggie to come lift the pain, if only temporarily. So the weight persisted. It followed me through the rest of high school and eventually all the way to Austin. I took my experience with Maggie as a singular event – one that had no effect on my treatment of other animals. But it is only through recognizing my responsibility for this earth that I will be able to find my identity within it. It would be easy to say that pets are different and that my treatment of other species does not matter. But it matters. Animals are not humans, but they are living, breathing beings that feel the burden pain brings. Maggie will always remind me of that. So here comes the choice – I can continue on with slouched shoulders, treading through this earth with no footprints, or I can turn my head upward and lead with eyes forward and outward, leaving deep footprints in my wake. I can become “the companion of a place, not its authority, not its owner.”[8] Specifically, I can care for the animals I have so willingly taken advantage of by no longer supporting an industry that chooses not only how they will die, but how they will live. I can educate myself by going out into nature to experience other beings besides myself. I can finally let go of this weight and acknowledge that this earth is the vessel that holds me.
Learning to be Sheltered by this Earth...[9]
"Shelter" - Ray LaMontagne "I guess you don't need it I guess you don't want me to repeat it But everything I have to give I'll give to you It's not like we planned it You tried to stay, but you could not stand it To see me shut down slow As though it was an easy thing to do Listen when All of this around us'll fall over I tell you what we're gonna do You will shelter me my love And I will shelter you I will shelter you I left you heartbroken, but not until those very words were spoken Has anybody ever made such a fool out of you It's hard to believe it Even as my eyes do see it The very things that make you live are killing you Listen when all of this around us'll fall over I tell you what we're gonna do You will shelter me my love I will shelter you Listen when All of this around us'll fall over I tell you what we're gonnado You will shelter me my love I will shelter you If you shelter me too I will shelter you I will shelter you."
[1] Long Division, Danville Montessori School, Danville, Kentucky, http://danvillemontessorischool.org/images/longdivision.jpg (accessed February 12, 2009). [2] This film illustrates the "practical life" exercises specific to Montessori Schools, especially setting the table and working with "natural materials." Such exercises lead to a "sensory awareness" of one's environment and are believed to contribute largely to developing a Montessori child's independence. See Toddler Day Care -Montessori influenced -sensorial & practical, dir. Erica Thomas, YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDZRE9smmYg (accessed February 12, 2009). [3] This article discusses the importance of a specific learning environment in Montessori education, where the child works with natural materials in an environment organized by subject areas, including "cooking, cleaning...[and]caring for animals." Montanaro, "Montessori Materials and Learning Environments," Montessori: The International Montessori Index, section goes here, http://www.montessori.edu/index.html (accessed February 9, 2009). [5] Pawsitive Print Photography. http://pawsitiveprints.com/gallery.html (accessed February 14, 2009). [6] In this essay, Barry Holstrum Lopez explores the interaction between humans and nature and the necessity for an "ethical and reciprocal relationship" between the two. He is especially influenced by the American Indian experience and the connect indigenous people have with landscape. Barry H. Lopez, "A Literature of Place," USIA Electronic Journals 1, no. 10 (August 1996): 47. [7] Famous for his tales of nature, this short story explores the specific relationship between Graves and the dog he loved most, Blue. This particular excerpt discusses the emptiness with which Blue’s disappearance left. John Graves, "Blue and Some Other Dogs," Texas Monthly (1980): 135. [8] Barry H. Lopez, "A Literature of Place," USIA Electronic Journals 1, no. 10 (August 1996): 46.
[9]"Shelter," Ray LaMontagne, online music, 2004, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3UfvSjo0L4 (accessed February 9, 2009).
There are moments in this class where I have questioned if the attack we make on animals every day can be compared to such devastating attacks upon humanity, such as the Holocaust and Slavery. I came to such a question by the time of my second blog entry after reading Derrida, who dares to ask the reader “As if, for example, instead of throwing people into ovens or gas chambers (let’s say Nazis) doctors and geneticists had decided to organize the overproduction and overgeneration of Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals by means of artificial insemination, so that, being more numerous and better fed, they could be destined in always increasing numbers for the same hell, that of the imposition of genetic experimentation or extermination by gas or fire?”(225-226)” I followed up this quote with the statement that “I agree that the human treatment of animals is as appalling as it is unjust, but the parallel drawn here disturbs me – and I still do not know why.” Much like this statement, the rest of my blog was largely blurry and I can remember the confusion I felt even as I wrote. But the blurriness is starting to fade and I am beginning to realize one thing – animals are not humans. The reason why Derrida’s comments, along with Elizabeth Costello’s accusations in Coetzee’s Elizabeth Costello, offend me the way they do is that I find it morally inexcusable to take a level of human suffering of such great magnitude and use it to further a cause that is distinctly different.
Ironically, I think the plea Costello and Derrida use does more to distance the listener from the cause of animal rights than connect them to it. Amy Gutmann’s introduction made it clear to me why I am so offended by the Holocaust comparison when she quotes “the quiet anger of a poet who objects to Elizabeth Costello’s analogy between the murdered Jews of Europe and slaughtered cattle” who writes “’If Jews were treated like cattle,’ he says, ‘it does not follow that cattle are treated like Jews. The inversion insults the memory of the dead’”(297). Moreover, it may be questioned whether “the Holocaust could ever be part of any analogy”(297). The way we treat animals is markedly morally questionable, if not irrefutably unethical. But when I watched Earthlings, the comparison drawn between the Holocaust and our treatment of animals made me resistant to hear what the film actually had to say. The images and the videos of the animals would have been enough. Why did they have to compare it to human suffering? In my opinion, it only lowered the cause it sought to elevate.
Despite disagreeing with this particular comparison, there was some truth to be found in the statements Costello made. The most touching to me, in particular, was her discussion about ignorance. Ignorance does not equal innocence. She discusses how Germans, in her eyes, “lost their humanity...because of a certain willed ignorance on their part”(64). Although once again, I do not support the comparison she is making here between Germans and meat-eaters, there is some validity in what she is saying.
Blissful Ignorance?
I went my entire life choosing to be ignorant of the products I used and the animals I ingested. I never felt part of their suffering. I do, indeed, believe that this ignorance has left a genuine impact on how “humane,” or ethical I consider myself to be. I turned a blind eye because it was easier and I thought it made me immune to my moral responsibility to respect all forms of life. The way we treat animals is undoubtedly inhumane, not because animals are humans, but because it diminishes the code of ethics that makes us human.
I am the vessel that holds all of you. I am the one left stranded here the day you decided to carry on -- without the baggage of your past. I am the memories that you pushed violently away at first and then left to drift behind you when you moved too fast for them to catch up. I was there, first walking and then running, behind you to pick up the pieces. But your footsteps are too far ahead for me to reach and I cannot find my way here alone. So I walk now through the deserts of your past, picking up shards of memories that cut like glass and burn like the hot sand under my feet. And it is too late to turn back because, you see, I have no footsteps. The only thing that holds me is the fact that I held you. I am a shadow that lost her way, a loner looking for home, and a vessel cracking on all sides. So I must ask you, if you are so far ahead, where will the sun be to give me my light? Where can I find my map to guide me home? And who will hold the vessel that holds me?
I wrote this unsent letter to my sister just one year ago. Originally intended as a journal entry, then a letter, and finally as a reminder of what it is that I am searching for, it became one of the single most important pieces I have ever written. I spent my entire life holding the weight my family felt too burdensome to carry. Their pilgrimage became my pilgrimage, leaving no space for complaint or self-discovery. So when I found myself three hours away from the family that defined me, I lost myself entirely. By the time I left Dallas to come to the University of Texas, my sister’s addiction to cocaine, stays in Juvenile, and constant running away had come to a close. My parent’s marriage had also long since dissipated. But the weight persisted. Walking, I often hunched my back and pushed my shoulders forward to hold the burden, leaving me with sore shoulders and a distinct slouch I still carry with me. I blamed the tenderness on the heavy backpack I carried to school each day, but soon realized after only a few weeks of college with no need for a backpack, that my shoulders would forever hold the pain of something more than just physical strain. What I did not know at the time, however, was that the burden I held would pale in comparison to the burden I placed on this earth and the creatures that inhabit it.
The ache began the first day I came home after seeing my sister in Juvenile. I cried until my body shook and my shoulders trembled. I cried until the book between my hands dampened and its edges wilted. I cried until my cat, Maggie, came to hold my pain for me. I still do not fully understand how she came to know how to rest herself on my shoulders or to wrap her paws around my neck whenever I began to cry. But I suppose that it is not as important as the fact that she did. With my dad withdrawn in his office and my mom crying in the bedroom, Maggie came to me as my vessel to lift the burden and relieve the ache, if only temporarily.
I returned to school that Monday with no urge to talk about what I saw or how I had cried. Instead, I got lost in working with long division beads, shown below [1], and painting in the lunchroom. This pattern continued on throughout elementary and middle school. Each day I came to school, no matter what I witnessed the weekend before or at home at night, and I would walk in the door, shake my shoulders free of the baggage and entrench myself in the learning environment.
Long division beads similar to those I used in elementary school
Going to a Montessori school, I worked with natural materials instead of papers and workbooks, demonstrated in the video below [2]. Montessori forced me to realize, mostly through “practical life” activities such as gardening, setting the table, and cooking, how to gain a sense of and responsibility for my surroundings. In this environment separate from chaos and closer to simplicity, I suddenly found the world manageable.
As the years carried onward, the more abstract my education became, working less in “practical life” and long division beads, and more with papers and books. Simultaneously, however, I began to have more interactions with nature through class camping excursions and trips to the “Melissa Campus,” a place where we could explore natural Texas wildlife and study about fossils, botany, and water forms. But despite my education in nature, I cannot recall a single encounter with any animals on either of these types of trips. For this reason, Montessori did not instill in me the respect for animals that seemingly a respect for nature would call for. In other words, I appreciated the magnificence of the earth with no knowledge or regard to the animals that inhabited it. Ironically, one of the major goals of Montessori is to put “the child in touch with environment, and [help] him to learn to make intelligent choices and carry out research in a prepared environment” [3]. But I was not in touch with my environment – in fact, I sat so far outside its bounds that I became part of its burden. Animals carried my weight.
My shoulders bent so far forward that my eyes turned themselves downward to the cruelty with which I unknowingly treated animals, and now knowingly continue to treat animals, by eating meat and consuming animal products. I “appreciated” my cat, Maggie, while treating her as a pet and not a fellow being. I explored the environment with no notice to the species that inhabited it. I continued to eat meat even after I watched the violent treatment of animals in the film, Earthlings. Too concerned with my own hunched shoulders, I never realized whose shoulders I placed the burden on – animals. Moreover, I stood so high atop their shoulders that I could not hear their voices or their cries.
There were times, however, that I truly believe I allowed animals to walk by my side and not beneath my heavy feet. When Maggie grew sick from a rare kidney disease, I would hold her the way she held me. When her body grew weak and feeble, I would lay her against my chest and rock her until she purred her way into oblivion of all pain, similar to the girl in the picture below.
My Vessel, Maggie [4]
This, I believe, should be the goal of all humans – to have this kind of reciprocal relationship with all animals. Barry Lopez, an author mainly concerned with American Indian tradition and experience, writes in an essay entitled “A Literature of Place” that “It may be more important now to enter into an ethical and reciprocal relationship with everything around us than to continue to work toward the sort of control of the physical world that, until recently, we aspired to” [5]. Just as I lifted the weight of her pain, she lifted the weight of mine. Maggie loved me with no conditions and nothing for me to hold in exchange for such love – except her.
When Maggie passed away in 2005, the absence of her love left me feeling heavier than ever. Similar to the loss John Graves describes in his piece, “Blue and Other Dogs,” the space an animal leaves when it passes away is big [6]. Ironically, it is emptiness that made my shoulders feel heavy once more. The ache began as soon as I came home after school the day she was put to sleep. I cried until my body shook and my shoulders trembled. I cried until the books between my hands dampened and their edges wilted. I cried, and for the first time in thirteen years, there was no Maggie to come lift the pain, if only temporarily.
So the weight persisted. It followed me through the rest of high school and eventually all the way to Austin. I took my experience with Maggie as a singular event – one that had no effect on my treatment of other animals. It would be easy to say that pets are different and that my treatment of other species does not matter. But it matters. Animals are not humans, but they are living, breathing beings that feel the burden pain brings. Maggie will always remind me of that.
So here comes the choice – I can continue on with slouched shoulders, treading through this earth with no footprints, or I can turn my head upward and lead with eyes forward and outward, leaving deep footprints in my wake. I can become “the companion of a place, not its authority, not its owner” [7]. Specifically, I can care for the animals I have so willingly taken advantage of by no longer supporting an industry that chooses not only how they will die, but how they will live. I can educate myself by going out into nature to experience other beings besides myself. I can finally shake my shoulders free and let this earth be the vessel that holds me.
"Shelter" - Ray LaMontagne "I guess you don't need it I guess you don't want me to repeat it But everything I have to give I'll give to you It's not like we planned it You tried to stay, but you could not stand it To see me shut down slow As though it was an easy thing to do Listen when All of this around us'll fall over I tell you what we're gonna do You will shelter me my love And I will shelter you I will shelter you I left you heartbroken, but not until those very words were spoken Has anybody ever made such a fool out of you It's hard to believe it Even as my eyes do see it The very things that make you live are killing you Listen when all of this around us'll fall over I tell you what we're gonna do You will shelter me my love I will shelter you Listen when All of this around us'll fall over I tell you what we're gonnado You will shelter me my love I will shelter you If you shelter me too I will shelter you I will shelter you."
Endnotes:
1.Long Division, Danville Montessori School, Danville, Kentucky, http://danvillemontessorischool.org/images/longdivision.jpg (accessed February 12, 2009). 2.This film illustrates the "practical life" exercises specific to Montessori Schools, especially setting the table and working with "natural materials." Such exercises lead to a "sensory awareness" of one's environment and are believed to contribute largely to developing a Montessori child's independence. See Toddler Day Care -Montessori influenced -sensorial & practical, dir. Erica Thomas, YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDZRE9smmYg (accessed February 12, 2009). 3. This article discusses the importance of a specific learning environment in Montessori education, where the child works with natural materials in an environment organized by subject areas, including "cooking, cleaning...[and] caring for animals." Montanaro, "Montessori Materials and Learning Environments," Montessori: The International Montessori Index, section goes here, http://www.montessori.edu/index.html (accessed February 9, 2009). 4. Pawsitive Print Photography. http://pawsitiveprints.com/gallery.html (accessed February 14, 2009). 5. In this essay, Barry Holstrum Lopez explores the interaction between humans and nature and the necessity for an "ethical and reciprocal relationship" between the two. He is especially influenced by the American Indian experience and the connect indigenous people have with landscape. Barry H. Lopez, "A Literature of Place," USIA Electronic Journals 1, no. 10 (August 1996): 47. 6. Famous for his tales of nature, this short story explores the specific relationship between Graves and the dog he loved most, Blue. This particular excerpt discusses the emptiness with which Blue’s disappearance left. John Graves, "Blue and Some Other Dogs," Texas Monthly (1980): 135. 7. Barry H. Lopez, "A Literature of Place," USIA Electronic Journals 1, no. 10 (August 1996): 46. 8. Although this song makes no reference to a vessel, the idea of using this earth to shelter me seemed especially relevant. The lines "You will shelter me, my love, and I will shelter you" I believe perfectly captures the reciprocal relationship humans should have with nature. "Shelter," Ray LaMontagne, online music, 2004, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3UfvSjo0L4 (accessed February 9, 2009).
Am I a kind person? It’s a simple question, but nevertheless one I tend to push aside. I used to be able to say with certainty that I was a good person – someone who was always looking out for others. Statistically speaking, I won all the superficial superlatives in school that pigeonhole your identity so in fifteen years, even if your former classmates don’t remember your name, they’ll be able to remember you were the “biggest flirt” or “most likely to succeed.” The champion of the “Kindest” award in middle school, the “humblest” in high school, and the winner of an “Ethics” award my senior year, I had to be a good person – right? I’m not so sure. Every Tuesday and Thursday I am faced with the fact that my treatment of animals makes my kindness questionable if not completely non-existent. According to Dick, it is our treatment and compassion for animals that determines our very humanity. Kindness for me was always about how I treated other humans – what did animals have to do with it? As it turns out, it has a lot to do with it. Compassion is defined as “The feeling or emotion, when a person is moved by the suffering or distress of another, and by the desire to relieve it; pity that inclines one to spare or to succour”(236). What I found most surprising about this excerpt is that the word “human” is not included in the definition of compassion. The definition refers only to “another” – which could hypothetically include the entire spectrum of everything that is living. If we are compassionate beings, then shouldn’t we have compassion for all forms of life? This is where my own level of kindness comes into question. To be genuinely kind means to have some form of compassion and point of relation between yourself and “another.” Why have I, for so long, excluded the importance of compassion for animals in this equation? Habit or choice?
On a similar note, one of the most striking notions in Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Sleep was that Phil Resch’s lack of mercy for androids made him indeed less empathetic. Rick, finds himself in sharp contrast to Resch, realizing that “throughout his psyche he experience the android as a clever machine—as in his conscious view. And yet, in contrast to Phil Resch, a difference had manifested itself”(141). If even androids hold some form of life and reason for empathy, then imagine the level of compassion we should exhibit towards animals. Once again, this idea brings in the notion of respect and kindness for “another” and not just “another human.” Kindness is only a piece of the puzzle, however. The more important question I seem to be asking myself is if I am capable or willing to change? If I am emotionally intelligent, I should be able to not only exhibit “self-control” and “manage [my] disturbing emotions and impulses, and...channel them in useful ways”(263), but I should also learn to become a “change catalyst,” or a leader who can “catalyze change...recognize the need for change, challenge the status quo, and champion the new order”(264). Now that I am conscious of my treatment of animals, eating meat on a regular basis has become an undeniably conscious choice. When I stop by Quiznos in between classes or order my favorite meal – half a pastrami sandwich on Jewish rye with a side of potato salad – I am no longer inadvertently supporting the slaughter of animals I am supposed to have compassion for. My habit has become my choice.
...And I can't believe that this is what I have chosen.
On a similar note, in Sara’s blog, she said that “The viewers might feel sad for the animal, sympatric at best, but has no real connections to the animal: they never met them before, and they never will.” She’s right – how can I learn how to truly put myself in the shoes of an entirely other being? I cannot. But I can certainly be moved by their pain and moreover, I can make the choice to help relieve it. In Dick’s novel, the only thing that separates humans from androids is their empathy and capacity for kindness. The trouble for me is that I do not believe animals should be treated in the exact same manner as humans. In my mind, there is an undeniable, distinct difference between a human and an animal. The trouble here, however, is that this reasoning has allowed me to deny animals of the compassion and respect they rightfully deserve. Maybe it’s not about treating them like humans – maybe it’s just about giving them the respect any life deserves. Moreover, it is not the eating of meat that disturbs me, it is the fact that these meat industries have robbed them of a life. Watching “Earthlings” and seeing baby chicks been debeaked, baby cows being strapped to a wall and fed a purely liquid diet, and “milk” cows dying from exhaustion after being hooked up to tubes their entire lives, it has become apparent to me, now more than ever, that I have helped to rob a living, breathing, feeling being of a life.
So am I kind person? I’m not sure, but if I’m as “emotionally intelligent” as I hope I am, I will be.
So I know this is not the way I am supposed to begin a critique or discussion of the reading, but the truth is, I am extremely frustrated. For as long as I can remember, I have created a barrier between myself and animals. But the more articles I read, the more my stance on animals has begun to shift. Sitting here, writing this blog, I am completely uncomfortable because I keep drifting further and further away from my previous beliefs. Everything is sort of falling apart for me, but it is my hope by the end of the semester I’ll have been able to pick up the pieces to make a new puzzle – one that hopefully takes a stronger, more ethical stance on my relationship with animals. Since I am far from having any of the answers, I thought I might pose some of the questions I had while reading the texts.
The first and most frequent question I had while reading was what creates the barrier between animals and humans?
Derrida seems to provide the best response, claiming that their inability to “respond”(288) has allowed humans to narrow a vast spectrum of the living into one category – “animals.” He writes that “Animal is a word that men have given themselves the right to give. These humans are found giving it to themselves, this word, but as if they had received it as an inheritance. They have given themselves the word in order to corral a large number of living beings within a single concept: ‘the Animal’”(228 I loved what Josephine wrote in her blog regarding Derrida’s comments about the great barrier: “He believes that man has a need to group animals into a collective sub-species, a species that can never rise among the ranks of humans. On this planet, on this earth, on this land that both humans and animals inhabit, there exists a great divide. On this planet, on this earth, on this land exist organisms that man will never esteem as his equal, his peer, his brother.” It is as if we have created this word in order to create an entitlement – a justification for treatment that is far from just. The barrier, then, seems less physical and more mental and reflects our own inability to see animals as “peers,” as Josephine writes. I never once considered how vague the term animal is and how genuinely inappropriate it is to create a category that encapsulates everything that is living but not “human.” If we can group such creatures of “infinite space,” such as, “lizard from dog...the shark from the lamb, the parrot from the chimpanzee, the camel from the eagle...”(228), what is keeping us from placing humans in the same category as “animals?”
Apparently, however, we have also created a hierarchy of animals – deeming some more important than others. We seem to use these hierarchies to build even higher walls between ourselves and the “animal” world that surrounds us. In the third definition of “animal” provided in the text, it says that “In common usage” an animals is defined as “one of the lower animals; a brute, or beast; as distinguished from man”(229). Firstly, what defines a “lower” animal and secondly, what separates us from a “brute” or a “beast” if we are so mercilessly abusing these animals? While I agreed with the larger part of Justin Locasio’s blog, I am not sure I agree with the idea that we are the “advanced race” anymore. Reading Derrida and these vague and unjustified definitions of animals and humans, I’m no longer confused as to why my stance on animals versus humans has been so easily broken down. It is because the terms were without evidence in the first place.
The second question I had in reading these texts was if there is such a thing as animal humanity? I know this might seem like taking a step back, since the more I seemed to read, the more I realized that the line between “animals” and “humans” is blurry, to say the least. But it is questionable to me if we can apply the same treatment of humans to animals.
Above all else, what the reading, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, seemed to imply to me was that an empathy for animals is what in fact makes us human. It is with the measure of how Rachel feels about the objectification of animals that determines whether she is an “andy” or not. When Rachel’s response to Rick’s babyhide briefcase is delayed, he is more clear than ever that she cannot be fully human. Although Rick sees “the two dial indicators gyrate frantically,” he realizes they do so “only after a pause. The reaction had come, but too late”(59). This is what it means to be human – the ability to empathize with the living beings that surround us. According to Dick, humanity and animals are inextricably tied together. Even realizing the importance of how we treat the natural world that surrounds us, my gut feeling says there is something wrong about comparing the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust to our daily assault on animals. My third question, and the one I am still struggling with the most, is if there is reason in the comparison between the Holocaust and the mass maltreatment of animals is justified?
It seems from these pictures that there is, indeed, reason for comparisson.
Derrida writes, “As if, for example, instead of throwing people into ovens or gas chambers (let’s say Nazis) doctors and geneticists had decided to organize the overproduction and overgeneration of Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals by means of artificial insemination, so that, being more numerous and better fed, they could be destined in always increasing numbers for the same hell, that of the imposition of genetic experimentation or extermination by gas or fire?”(225-226) I agree that the human treatment of animals is as appalling as it is unjust, but the parallel drawn here disturbs me – and I still do not know why. Perhaps it is because I am not yet willing to treat animals with the same level of humanity as I do to other humans on a daily basis. I agree that they deserve a great deal of respect, but as blurry as the lines become between animals and humans with each reading, I am not sure I can (yet) provide the same level of humanity in my treatment of animals.
The “Sympathetic Imagination” helped clear away some of the blurriness that Derrida’s comments created for me. “Sympathetic Imagination” is taking a step beyond empathy – it is the act of traveling into the object itself. It “consists not in reading into the object subjective feelings aroused by it in the observer, but in perceiving, by instinctive but sagacious insight, the essential character and reality of the object itself”(241). This theory is fascinating to me because it involves more than learning to sympathize for these animals – it is about learning how to recognize ourselves as these animals. As common beings, rather than animal vs. man, I might be less appalled by the parallel made between the Holocaust and man’s treatment of animals.
But there is undoubtedly something terrifying in what I have read in these texts and seen in Earthlings. I cannot say it has induced the same response as the first time I read Elie Wiesel’s Night or saw pictures of victims of the Holocaust with their cheeks caved in and their bones practically pushing through their skin. More than pictures, there is a power in the “response” that the survivors could show the world when the Holocaust ended. What would we think of the Holocaust if there were no testimonials? Would it be easier to ignore its existence in history? The truth is, Bentham is right when he says “the question is not to know whether the animal can think, reason, or talk, something we still pretend to be asking ourselves”(226) – it is whether they have suffered. If we could eliminate the barriers created by the word “animal” and follow the theory of “Sympathetic Imagination,” perhaps we could give voices to the animals we’ve deemed voiceless, and thus unimportant. Moreover, if we could describe these animals pain, maybe we could break down the walls between animals and humans that have become so high that I can barely see over them.
What I was most touched by in “Blue and Some Other Dogs” was both its title and its ending.
Although I have yet to own a dog myself, up until three years ago, I had two cats that had a similar impact on me as Blue did to Graves. Honestly, I have never been the kind to feel hugely attached to other animals. But Alex and Maggie carved out a place in my heart that no other animal can quite touch. We have had other cats since, but none that have come close to Maggie or Alex in terms of love.(In lieu of not having my pictures in Austin, I have attached a few images of cats that resemble mine: The black cat representing Maggie and the black and white cat representing Alex) My cats brought absolutely no functional use to my household, other than killing a few bugs now and then. Much like Blue, they couldn’t herd cows or follow commands at the drop of a hat. But I am convinced they could love the way Blue did – why else would they leap into my lap as soon as I came home and wrap their paws around my neck? Although cats are certainly different creatures than dogs, there seemed to be a certain independence in Blue that reminded me of Alex and Maggie instantly. Often, as humans, we seem to believe that our pets belong to us, especially in regards to how domesticated they have become. But the truth is – they never quite do. I am sure that none of my pets has ever needed me in the same way I needed them. Although it made me instantly sad to learn that Blue ran away by the story’s end, there is something that is so fitting about this ending to me. It shows how little Blue needed Graves and yet how greatly Graves came to need him. What seems most unique about Blue throughout the story is that although he regularly demonstrates his love for Graves, “leaping five and six feet straight up in the air in pure and utter celebration”(133) when he returns from a trip, he remains autonomous throughout the story. It seems significant that the author constantly reminds the reader of all of Blue’s unique traits, such as his “clowning”(121) around when in trouble and the fact that he may never have been fit to be one of those “’Good’ country dogs”(126). Although it is Blue who croons “softly wolflike” and “lonely”(133) when Graves is away, it is Graves who is left overwhelmed by a pervading emptiness when Blue disappears.
Unlike Blue, my cat, Maggie, never ran away. She had been suffering with a kidney disease for four years before she finally passed on. I can still remember the day I came home from school and couldn’t find her black tail hanging over the edge of the refrigerator. It is an emptiness that no matter how many cats may follow, I am positive, will never be filled. When Graves remarks that “...dogs are nothing but dogs and I know it better than most, and all this was for a queer and nervous crossbreed that couldn’t even herd stock right”(135), he ironically makes it apparent that dogs are never just dogs and, for that matter, pets are never just pets—they are our companions and our models of unconditional love. Our need for them is not physical -- it's emotional.
Other than the ending, I love that the author of this short story chose to entitle this work “Blue and Some Other Dogs.” The truth is, as many pets as I have had, there are only two that I can say truly touched my heart. If I had written a short story similar to his, I would have to call it “Maggie, Alex, and Some Other Cats.” I agree with Catherine Hagar’s message in her blog that Graves seems reluctant to love another animal again. And, much like her, I don’t believe it’s foolishness that lets us care for animals – it’s our need for companionship and compassion. Yet, I can also see that the love I have for my first two cats, Maggie and Alex, can never be touched. I know I am more than capable of loving another animal, but am somewhat reluctant to – at least as deeply as I once did. Deep down, there is a fear that the emptiness Maggie left behind will only grow bigger with each loss.
Mustangs: True Companions of this Earth
These cityscapes have become our landscapes, and exist because of our resistance to be companions with the earth
Where these "happy" cattle end up -- slaughterhouses
Not quite how I looked on my first ride, but the horse here looks extremely similar to Applejack
How would humans feel if they were made to wear such heavy straps?
I will be your vessel...
