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.
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?
