I have a highly active and imaginative mind, and it has always been that way. I can't think of a time when my mind has been turned off (not even when I'm sleeping). I've spent a lot of time thinking, who is God? Now, that's a very open-ended question and can be interpreted in many ways. And that's the beauty of it - it can be interpreted in so many different ways.
Usually when I ask myself this question I go back and forth between two answers. In the first, I project human qualities onto Him. It seems accurate because He did create humans in His image. The second is that I find the first completely impossible and give up trying to answer the question altogether, because there really is no way to know.
When we think of animals, we tend to project our human qualities, our human emotions, our needs, our desires, onto them - just like I do when I think about God. But what if animals were so different from us, that we can't even fathom what goes on in their minds? Maybe we've got it all wrong. I'm not in any way comparing God's mystery with the mystery of animals, because that isn't on the same level with anything. However, it's a parallel that can be applied to many aspects of life.
Take the notion of stereotypes for example. When we see a person wearing a certain outfit, or carrying a significant item, or doing a certain activity, it is so easy to label them with a stereotype - to assign them an identity. Humans do this because we LOVE to compare what we don't know with what we do. And for good reason; that's the entire basis of scientific experimentation and theory and mathematics, and pretty much everything. This is how we find out information about the unknowns - by comparing and contrasting with what we do know.
By assigning a person an identity based on what they appear to be wearing, carrying, doing, etc. we can automatically deduce a number of facts about them (whether they are true or not). It is so easy, we've been doing it for our whole lives. The problem arises when we are wrong. When we assign a stereotype and someone breaks that - then how do we know what is right?
As I have seen in the videos and readings about animals' emotions, fantastic animal feats of survival or companionship, or animal-animal/animal-human relationships, animals have great potential to break their stereotypical mold.
Lots of people in my class raised the valid point that these cases are extreme, that a strange animal to animal cross species relationship is administered only under human care. Yes, it's also hard to believe that a chicken would respond to CPR. But the question that I raise is, how many of these extraordinary acts occur without being noticed? Yes, we have a whole lot of the animals in the world under surveillance, whether in a home, a farm, a slaughterhouse, a pet store, a circus, a zoo, a forest reserve, etc. - but there a also a whole lot that are not. How much goes on without us noticing? How much of animals have we over-looked?
Rather, not just what about animals have we over-looked, but what about animals have we over-looked by projecting our human characteristics onto them? How many people that we label with stereotypical identities break their mold drastically - enough to render that stereotype invalid? Maybe animals are more highly developed than we are but can't act on it because they don't have opposable thumbs (that is besides chimpanzees). Maybe these "unnatural" acts are just glimpses into the animal unknown - maybe it's enough to render our current understanding of animals invalid.
After many years of pondering, I don't feel the need to know everything about God. I believe that that's the way it should be. We as humans always want to find answers - we want to solve the problem, create something new, discover something undiscovered. What if we don't have to? What if we aren't meant to solve all of the problems, or uncover every single mystery. Is the unknown that awful? More relevant to animals - can we contently co-exist with the unknown?
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Culture
The picture attached to this post was an item on the menu at a restaurant I ate at yesterday. Ironically, we had just talked in class about how advertising makes fun of animal that are made to be eaten. They show commercials such as Foster Farms Chicken and California Cows that glorify the life of a factory farmed animal. They portray these animals as stupid, happy, and eager to be eaten. If I was an animal, even with limited brain power, I don't think I would be the least bit eager to be eaten.
On a different note, the location of the restaurant provides more insight into why this pig was placed on the menu. Rarely would you be able to go into a restaurant and find menus with pictures of animals to illustrate what you will eat. This specific restaurant is a bar and grill in a rural city on the outskirts of the Seattle suburbs. Other pictures on the menu included a shadow of a buck's head with antlers taking up the entire background of both pages, and a cartoon bull jumping around.
When looked at in relation to its location, this menu's illustrations make sense. It is in a town full of farmers, many of whom have probably grown up raising their own livestock their entire lives. They may be comfortable recognizing that they are eating a pig as they look at the menu. Even though they are in close proximity, their culture is different than that of a young urban couple living in downtown Seattle that may have never even seen a cow in real life.
Culture within a city can vary. More obviously, culture across state borders and international borders vary quite a lot. Cultures' conceptions of food can be drastically different. For example, here in the United States, we do not eat cats...I adore my cat...but historically in some Asian countries, cats are used in some dishes. Many restaurants in the southern United States may not have a lot to offer when it comes to vegetarian selections, whereas in India, vegetarianism is an important aspect of some religious sects.
Everyone comes from a different place. Everyone has different childhoods, different experiences, different values, different cultural customs, and different beliefs. Cultures have disagreements with other cultures for these reasons - usually relating to religion, human rights, and land - which often result in wars and other catastrophes, still happening today.
Cultures have fatal disagreements all the time, without the treatment of animals involved. With all sorts of other issues in the way, will the treatment of animals ever be a global priority? Will there ever be a day when the whole world can see eye to eye on animal rights and/or welfare?
When looked at in relation to its location, this menu's illustrations make sense. It is in a town full of farmers, many of whom have probably grown up raising their own livestock their entire lives. They may be comfortable recognizing that they are eating a pig as they look at the menu. Even though they are in close proximity, their culture is different than that of a young urban couple living in downtown Seattle that may have never even seen a cow in real life.
Culture within a city can vary. More obviously, culture across state borders and international borders vary quite a lot. Cultures' conceptions of food can be drastically different. For example, here in the United States, we do not eat cats...I adore my cat...but historically in some Asian countries, cats are used in some dishes. Many restaurants in the southern United States may not have a lot to offer when it comes to vegetarian selections, whereas in India, vegetarianism is an important aspect of some religious sects.
Everyone comes from a different place. Everyone has different childhoods, different experiences, different values, different cultural customs, and different beliefs. Cultures have disagreements with other cultures for these reasons - usually relating to religion, human rights, and land - which often result in wars and other catastrophes, still happening today.
Cultures have fatal disagreements all the time, without the treatment of animals involved. With all sorts of other issues in the way, will the treatment of animals ever be a global priority? Will there ever be a day when the whole world can see eye to eye on animal rights and/or welfare?
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Dissociation
Since I've started taking this class, I've not been eating meat. I can't bring myself to do it knowing what I know now. However, I find it harder to make those meatless choices on Sundays and Mondays and Tuesdays. Why? Because my Animal Planet class meets on Wednesdays and Fridays. When I have long breaks of time away from the thought-provoking discussions revolving around eating animals, I catch myself thinking, why am I doing this? Why do I care about eating meat? Why should I change?
I blame this partially on my appetite, but mostly on language.
On Monday, I read Animal to Edible by Noelie Vialles. One of the topics of her novel was the dissociation between slaughter and butchery. The slaughterer is the actual person who does the killing - the butcher no longer does, rather he distributes the meat to the consumers. Directly and indirectly, Vialles mentioned quite a few other dissociations that have been made in terms of consuming animals.
In slaughterhouses, there is a dirty sector and a clean sector. The dirty sector is the entrance where the animals come in, the clean sector is where the meat comes out. In between there is a 'trap' where animals are caught in the middle of their life and death - between dirty and clean. One cannot simply go from the dirty sector to the clean sector. Slaughterhouses have ample rules and regulations to keep the dissociation of the dirty from clean in tact.
An animal goes into the slaughterhouse and meat comes out of it. However, while in its "making", the meat is fixed and adorned so that meat no longer resembles animal. The dissociation between animals and meat is a major reason that people continue to eat it. Every time I begin to tell people about the meal they are about to eat, I get the response, "I don't want to hear about it". Recognizing that their food is actually part of an animal, it's parts now distant and spread across the world, would spoil their dinner by bridging the dissociation. I would be shocked if I ever heard anyone say that they're craving animal rather than craving meat for dinner.
During this process of an animal becoming meat, the animal must be killed. However, 'administering of death' or 'killing' has taken on a new name: 'shedding of blood'. Before an animal's throat is slit and the blood is drained, the animal is stunned between the eyes in order to render it unconscious. Therefore, as Vialles put it, who actually does the killing - the stunner or the slitter? I would argue the throat slitter, but nonetheless, this process creates a kind of foggy confusion in which no one can be completely certain. Shedding of blood is no longer congruent with administering of death. They are conveniently dissociated.
All of these dissociations have one thing in common - they humanize something inhuman. From slaughter comes butchery. From dirty comes clean. From animal comes meat. From administering of death comes shedding of blood. By changing our language, we change the connotations that come with the meaning.
According to Vialles, killing of animals used to be a commonality in the streets, for all people to watch. Over time, society decided that they no longer wished to see their food be killed. The slaughtering was thus confined to slaughterhouses on the outskirts of town. This way, the people could completely dissociate their society from having anything to do with the killing of animals for food (or so they thought). They could HIDE the killings and all of the negativity that came with it.
Dissociation is a way of hiding, of concealing from view. We dissociate, as I have described, through language. In the first part of Animal to Edible, Vialles states that, "The development of vocabulary often provides a very clear indication of the way in which a society's eating habits evolved." Our vocabulary around food has developed in such a way that it hides the actual meaning - it is dissociated from the actual meaning. All of the inhumane words are made human and are not only tolerated, but accepted, by the majority of the population.
This brings me back to my original problem - why do I find it harder to stick to a vegetarian diet on Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays - or rather on days that I am farther removed from the knowledge of what meat really is, and how it became meat? The language that our society uses to talk about meat and animals makes it easy to revert back to how I originally thought. It makes it easier for me to forget what I have learned because the language that we use today hides the truth. I am dissociated from the truth.
I blame this partially on my appetite, but mostly on language.
On Monday, I read Animal to Edible by Noelie Vialles. One of the topics of her novel was the dissociation between slaughter and butchery. The slaughterer is the actual person who does the killing - the butcher no longer does, rather he distributes the meat to the consumers. Directly and indirectly, Vialles mentioned quite a few other dissociations that have been made in terms of consuming animals.
In slaughterhouses, there is a dirty sector and a clean sector. The dirty sector is the entrance where the animals come in, the clean sector is where the meat comes out. In between there is a 'trap' where animals are caught in the middle of their life and death - between dirty and clean. One cannot simply go from the dirty sector to the clean sector. Slaughterhouses have ample rules and regulations to keep the dissociation of the dirty from clean in tact.
An animal goes into the slaughterhouse and meat comes out of it. However, while in its "making", the meat is fixed and adorned so that meat no longer resembles animal. The dissociation between animals and meat is a major reason that people continue to eat it. Every time I begin to tell people about the meal they are about to eat, I get the response, "I don't want to hear about it". Recognizing that their food is actually part of an animal, it's parts now distant and spread across the world, would spoil their dinner by bridging the dissociation. I would be shocked if I ever heard anyone say that they're craving animal rather than craving meat for dinner.
During this process of an animal becoming meat, the animal must be killed. However, 'administering of death' or 'killing' has taken on a new name: 'shedding of blood'. Before an animal's throat is slit and the blood is drained, the animal is stunned between the eyes in order to render it unconscious. Therefore, as Vialles put it, who actually does the killing - the stunner or the slitter? I would argue the throat slitter, but nonetheless, this process creates a kind of foggy confusion in which no one can be completely certain. Shedding of blood is no longer congruent with administering of death. They are conveniently dissociated.
All of these dissociations have one thing in common - they humanize something inhuman. From slaughter comes butchery. From dirty comes clean. From animal comes meat. From administering of death comes shedding of blood. By changing our language, we change the connotations that come with the meaning.
According to Vialles, killing of animals used to be a commonality in the streets, for all people to watch. Over time, society decided that they no longer wished to see their food be killed. The slaughtering was thus confined to slaughterhouses on the outskirts of town. This way, the people could completely dissociate their society from having anything to do with the killing of animals for food (or so they thought). They could HIDE the killings and all of the negativity that came with it.
Dissociation is a way of hiding, of concealing from view. We dissociate, as I have described, through language. In the first part of Animal to Edible, Vialles states that, "The development of vocabulary often provides a very clear indication of the way in which a society's eating habits evolved." Our vocabulary around food has developed in such a way that it hides the actual meaning - it is dissociated from the actual meaning. All of the inhumane words are made human and are not only tolerated, but accepted, by the majority of the population.
This brings me back to my original problem - why do I find it harder to stick to a vegetarian diet on Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays - or rather on days that I am farther removed from the knowledge of what meat really is, and how it became meat? The language that our society uses to talk about meat and animals makes it easy to revert back to how I originally thought. It makes it easier for me to forget what I have learned because the language that we use today hides the truth. I am dissociated from the truth.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Relationships
Currently, I have two cats and one dog. My eldest cat is an all black shorthair named Rocco. My newest cat is white and grey long-hair kitten named Charlie. Rocco is now twelve. A couple years ago, when he was a solo cat, we decided to get a new kitten named Leo. Rocco, once lively and very active, became sedentary and grumpy the second we brought Leo home. About a year later, Leo got lost. Rocco couldn't have been happier - he was back to his normal self.
My mom is a huge cat person. In her childhood, she never had less than three cats at a time. It had been a while since Leo's passing, so naturally my family thought it was appropriate to consider getting a new kitten. My mom was so against this, we thought we'd never get another cat. The reason? Because she didn't want Rocco to feel like he wasn't of value to our family, or that we didn't love him anymore. She didn't want him to feel as though we had to keep replacing him. His obvious behavioral reactions when we got Leo and when Leo left was enough to convince my mom that he would be much worse off with a new kitten.
Well, I had contrary beliefs and thought that a new kitten would be a wonderful addition to our already wild household. After practically forcing this kitten onto my mom in PAWS, she accepted him - enthusiastically. This kitten has now become an integral part of our family. Charlie hangs out with all of our family members, he has a civil relationship with Rocco (the one who before was a huge grump around Leo, and who we now give an enormous amount of attention to to make sure he knows he is loved), and most amazingly, he has an intimate companionship with our German Shepherd, Lola.
There are three main points from this account of my family's animal related interactions that I want to address:
First, what if everyone took the feelings and the lives of animals into deep consideration like my mother. What if when designing slaughter houses, animals FEELINGS were thought about? What if the primary concern of a factory farmer was to make sure that the animals all FELT good? What if there was an entire section of industrial factory farming devoted to animals' MENTAL HEALTH?
Secondly, why do I fawn over Charlie and not a pig? I believe it's because of how I was raised. I didn't grow up around pigs. The majority of the country hasn't. Does that mean that a pig is any different than a cat? Sure they have different genetic make ups, behavioral patterns, and tendencies - but they are also so alike. We tend to spend so much time focusing on the differences of animals, the differences of humans - race, gender, sexual orientation, occupation, income level. By focusing on the differences, it makes it a lot easier to marginalize the different ones. Differences are certainly necessary, but we sometimes forget to acknowledge that we are the same in so many ways. We are all humans. We are ALL creatures that inhabit the Earth, us and animals alike. We are animals.
Lastly, and on a slightly different note, I want to talk about inter-species relationships. I believe that Lola and Charlie really love each other. They play with each other, cuddle with each other, and just hang out together. When Charlie is playing with a toy, Lola will wait until he isn't watching, snatches the toy, and trots off with it waiting for Charlie to come find her. I watched the documentary - "Animal Odd Couples" - and it related so well to the relationship of Charlie and Lola. As was stated in the documentary multiple times, animals are far more complex than we give them credit for. Sure, these behaviors are instinctual. But aren't we mostly instinctual beings as well?
I have always been in awe of animals, and I always will be. Yes, I believe that humans are dominant over animals - but I believe that the relationship is much more complex than that. I believe that animals and humans must learn from each other and explore each other without disregarding the others' rights. Instead of one species exploiting the other, I think it is time that society as a whole re-thinks our position of dominance, and begins to question for what the vital position that we hold in hierarchy of earthlings should be used.
My mom is a huge cat person. In her childhood, she never had less than three cats at a time. It had been a while since Leo's passing, so naturally my family thought it was appropriate to consider getting a new kitten. My mom was so against this, we thought we'd never get another cat. The reason? Because she didn't want Rocco to feel like he wasn't of value to our family, or that we didn't love him anymore. She didn't want him to feel as though we had to keep replacing him. His obvious behavioral reactions when we got Leo and when Leo left was enough to convince my mom that he would be much worse off with a new kitten.
Well, I had contrary beliefs and thought that a new kitten would be a wonderful addition to our already wild household. After practically forcing this kitten onto my mom in PAWS, she accepted him - enthusiastically. This kitten has now become an integral part of our family. Charlie hangs out with all of our family members, he has a civil relationship with Rocco (the one who before was a huge grump around Leo, and who we now give an enormous amount of attention to to make sure he knows he is loved), and most amazingly, he has an intimate companionship with our German Shepherd, Lola.
There are three main points from this account of my family's animal related interactions that I want to address:
First, what if everyone took the feelings and the lives of animals into deep consideration like my mother. What if when designing slaughter houses, animals FEELINGS were thought about? What if the primary concern of a factory farmer was to make sure that the animals all FELT good? What if there was an entire section of industrial factory farming devoted to animals' MENTAL HEALTH?
Secondly, why do I fawn over Charlie and not a pig? I believe it's because of how I was raised. I didn't grow up around pigs. The majority of the country hasn't. Does that mean that a pig is any different than a cat? Sure they have different genetic make ups, behavioral patterns, and tendencies - but they are also so alike. We tend to spend so much time focusing on the differences of animals, the differences of humans - race, gender, sexual orientation, occupation, income level. By focusing on the differences, it makes it a lot easier to marginalize the different ones. Differences are certainly necessary, but we sometimes forget to acknowledge that we are the same in so many ways. We are all humans. We are ALL creatures that inhabit the Earth, us and animals alike. We are animals.
Lastly, and on a slightly different note, I want to talk about inter-species relationships. I believe that Lola and Charlie really love each other. They play with each other, cuddle with each other, and just hang out together. When Charlie is playing with a toy, Lola will wait until he isn't watching, snatches the toy, and trots off with it waiting for Charlie to come find her. I watched the documentary - "Animal Odd Couples" - and it related so well to the relationship of Charlie and Lola. As was stated in the documentary multiple times, animals are far more complex than we give them credit for. Sure, these behaviors are instinctual. But aren't we mostly instinctual beings as well?
I have always been in awe of animals, and I always will be. Yes, I believe that humans are dominant over animals - but I believe that the relationship is much more complex than that. I believe that animals and humans must learn from each other and explore each other without disregarding the others' rights. Instead of one species exploiting the other, I think it is time that society as a whole re-thinks our position of dominance, and begins to question for what the vital position that we hold in hierarchy of earthlings should be used.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Hope
Factory farming damages the environment, infringes on the rights of the workers, the consumers, and those that are consumed, and its ethical values, or lack thereof, are constantly coming into question. It has become clear to me from what I have been exposed to just in this first week of class that factory farming does much more harm than good, and is grossly inefficient.
The question has been asked - What will it take for society as a whole to change?
My boyfriend is a history buff and could probably tell you the details of any historical event that has occurred within the last few centuries. One day, he told me that there is a very clear pattern that is visible throughout history. A society has a set of values and traditions and ways of living. Eventually in that society, someone recognizes a need for change. They rally people together, however small the group, and eventually gain enough influence to overpower the existing notion, force, or group of people. Over time, the underdog wins if they are fighting to change a defective aspect of a certain society that is damaging, infringes on rights, or is ethically wrong.
We see countless examples of this occurring throughout history, even recently. Women's rights, LBGTQ rights, racial equality, child labor laws, health information available about tobacco, the emancipation of slaves (mentioned to me by a classmate) - even the revolutionary war - all came about because a smaller group of people that saw the need for a change, changed society.
Factory farming falls into this category as well. As hopeless as documentaries such as Earthlings and Food Inc. might make us feel, there IS hope. It may be hard to imagine, especially for me only having lived eighteen years. But if I ask my grandparents or other elderly relatives, society has constantly been changing. Sometimes it can seem to me as though society will continue exactly as how I see the world RIGHT NOW - that the world will be the same in ten, fifteen, even fifty years. This is not the case. Society will continue to be progressive, no matter how much the existing forces resist. History has proven it so.
As I offered this opinion to my class, one student mentioned that factory farming might not get as much attention and thus not fall into this category because of the influence and money that exist within the clutch of the corporations trying to protect it. However, the same could have been said about the tobacco industry which had a huge hand in the marketing industry, slavery that was perpetuated by people with large sums of money and power, or child labor that was implemented by corporations.
I believe that in order for the food industry to change - and here I'm not just talking about the meat industry, but also vegetables, fruit, grains, anything we eat, because it all to some extent can be unhealthily processed - it must hit on a personal level. Advocates must stress that many preventable diseases are caused by poor nutrition and/or badly processed foods. People must begin to notice that food can play a crucial role in the cycle of poverty. Most importantly, the connection needs to be made between animals and food - that what is being put on ones plate was once a living and breathing being, not just a piece of bacon.
All of these points of reason that advocate for a more ethical and sustainable food industry must hit home to the majority of the population to enact change. Luckily, people are already aware of these issues, and have gotten the ball rolling. As for now, we must do what we can to add to its momentum, and together look forward to the day when the ball reaches the finish line.
The question has been asked - What will it take for society as a whole to change?
My boyfriend is a history buff and could probably tell you the details of any historical event that has occurred within the last few centuries. One day, he told me that there is a very clear pattern that is visible throughout history. A society has a set of values and traditions and ways of living. Eventually in that society, someone recognizes a need for change. They rally people together, however small the group, and eventually gain enough influence to overpower the existing notion, force, or group of people. Over time, the underdog wins if they are fighting to change a defective aspect of a certain society that is damaging, infringes on rights, or is ethically wrong.
We see countless examples of this occurring throughout history, even recently. Women's rights, LBGTQ rights, racial equality, child labor laws, health information available about tobacco, the emancipation of slaves (mentioned to me by a classmate) - even the revolutionary war - all came about because a smaller group of people that saw the need for a change, changed society.
Factory farming falls into this category as well. As hopeless as documentaries such as Earthlings and Food Inc. might make us feel, there IS hope. It may be hard to imagine, especially for me only having lived eighteen years. But if I ask my grandparents or other elderly relatives, society has constantly been changing. Sometimes it can seem to me as though society will continue exactly as how I see the world RIGHT NOW - that the world will be the same in ten, fifteen, even fifty years. This is not the case. Society will continue to be progressive, no matter how much the existing forces resist. History has proven it so.
As I offered this opinion to my class, one student mentioned that factory farming might not get as much attention and thus not fall into this category because of the influence and money that exist within the clutch of the corporations trying to protect it. However, the same could have been said about the tobacco industry which had a huge hand in the marketing industry, slavery that was perpetuated by people with large sums of money and power, or child labor that was implemented by corporations.
I believe that in order for the food industry to change - and here I'm not just talking about the meat industry, but also vegetables, fruit, grains, anything we eat, because it all to some extent can be unhealthily processed - it must hit on a personal level. Advocates must stress that many preventable diseases are caused by poor nutrition and/or badly processed foods. People must begin to notice that food can play a crucial role in the cycle of poverty. Most importantly, the connection needs to be made between animals and food - that what is being put on ones plate was once a living and breathing being, not just a piece of bacon.
All of these points of reason that advocate for a more ethical and sustainable food industry must hit home to the majority of the population to enact change. Luckily, people are already aware of these issues, and have gotten the ball rolling. As for now, we must do what we can to add to its momentum, and together look forward to the day when the ball reaches the finish line.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Earthlings
The definition of a serial killer according to Wikipedia is:
An individual whose motivation for killing is usually based on psychological gratification...motives for serial murder include "anger, thrill, financial gain, and attention seeking"...victims may have had something in common; for example, occupation, race, appearance, sex, or age group...
Or in this case, species. I had never cried during any kind of movie in my entire life until I watched Earthlings. Maybe a tear or two during the Titanic (my favorite movie of all time) or during The Passion, which is even more emotionally gripping. However emotional the movies I have seen in the past may have been, nothing could compare to the sadness, pity, and shame that I felt as I sobbed watching Earthlings.
The movie explained in graphic detail how animals serve humans (willingly or not) on this earth. Companionship, food, clothes, entertainment, and science. All of what the movie outlined was hard to swallow, but one aspect was particularly difficult to watch - the theme of human superiority. It is obvious that in our society humans have more power than animals. As I explained in my last post, that is the way (in Christian beliefs) that God intended it to be. However, humans can sometimes act as though ignorance, arrogance, cruelty and disregard all go hand in hand with superiority - without taking into consideration the immense responsibility that comes with superiority.
Earthlings documented some pretty horrible actions by factory farm workers towards animals. Sure a worker must use a rod to guide an animal into a certain location - just to do their job. Some took it much farther than that, going to the extremes of beating animals just because they felt like it. Also disturbing was the immense amount of swearing from the workers. Being in college and in the Greek system specifically, I hear a lot of swearing and derogatory language. I don't usually swear, but it doesn't necessarily bother me. Hearing the dialogue that the workers had with themselves and the animals bothered me, a lot.
In addition to the swearing, there was quite a lot of cheering done by the workers. Not cheering in the sense that someone was winning a race, receiving an award, or achieving a goal but rather the cheering that occurs when a frat guy's friends find out that he got lucky with a girl last night. It was the most unnerving cheering. The workers were whooping and yelling because what they were doing to the animals excited them - how slaughtering animals could be thrilling I cannot fathom.
Ubiquitous throughout all of the sources I have been presented so far in this class is the main driving factor behind animal cruelty - money. "The values of wild animals have been reduced to their economic value" according to Earthlings. A century ago, animals were not factory farmed - they were family farmed. The many steps that led to the efficiently carried out mass murder in factory farms today was completely driven by the greed.
What is the difference between the murder of a human and the murder of an animal? As I have just described, what is being done to animals has three out of four of the same primary motives as serial killers - anger (beating the animals and swearing unnecessarily), thrill (cheering and getting excited), and financial gain (sought out by the industry as a whole).
For many, the life of a human has a much higher value than the life of an animals - however, that does not mean that the life of an animal has no value at all. As stated in Earthlings, "it takes nothing from a human to be kind to an animal". What occurs in factory farms, and in many other situations as described in the segments of companionship, clothing, entertainment, and science, shows humans at their worst - abusing their superiority and not accepting any responsibility for their actions. People do not have to treat animals the way they do. It is unnecessary and makes me ashamed. However, I am so happy that I am being exposed to this information, because -
"Ignorance is the first line of defense - but is breached by anyone that wants to know the truth".
An individual whose motivation for killing is usually based on psychological gratification...motives for serial murder include "anger, thrill, financial gain, and attention seeking"...victims may have had something in common; for example, occupation, race, appearance, sex, or age group...
Or in this case, species. I had never cried during any kind of movie in my entire life until I watched Earthlings. Maybe a tear or two during the Titanic (my favorite movie of all time) or during The Passion, which is even more emotionally gripping. However emotional the movies I have seen in the past may have been, nothing could compare to the sadness, pity, and shame that I felt as I sobbed watching Earthlings.
The movie explained in graphic detail how animals serve humans (willingly or not) on this earth. Companionship, food, clothes, entertainment, and science. All of what the movie outlined was hard to swallow, but one aspect was particularly difficult to watch - the theme of human superiority. It is obvious that in our society humans have more power than animals. As I explained in my last post, that is the way (in Christian beliefs) that God intended it to be. However, humans can sometimes act as though ignorance, arrogance, cruelty and disregard all go hand in hand with superiority - without taking into consideration the immense responsibility that comes with superiority.
Earthlings documented some pretty horrible actions by factory farm workers towards animals. Sure a worker must use a rod to guide an animal into a certain location - just to do their job. Some took it much farther than that, going to the extremes of beating animals just because they felt like it. Also disturbing was the immense amount of swearing from the workers. Being in college and in the Greek system specifically, I hear a lot of swearing and derogatory language. I don't usually swear, but it doesn't necessarily bother me. Hearing the dialogue that the workers had with themselves and the animals bothered me, a lot.
In addition to the swearing, there was quite a lot of cheering done by the workers. Not cheering in the sense that someone was winning a race, receiving an award, or achieving a goal but rather the cheering that occurs when a frat guy's friends find out that he got lucky with a girl last night. It was the most unnerving cheering. The workers were whooping and yelling because what they were doing to the animals excited them - how slaughtering animals could be thrilling I cannot fathom.
Ubiquitous throughout all of the sources I have been presented so far in this class is the main driving factor behind animal cruelty - money. "The values of wild animals have been reduced to their economic value" according to Earthlings. A century ago, animals were not factory farmed - they were family farmed. The many steps that led to the efficiently carried out mass murder in factory farms today was completely driven by the greed.
What is the difference between the murder of a human and the murder of an animal? As I have just described, what is being done to animals has three out of four of the same primary motives as serial killers - anger (beating the animals and swearing unnecessarily), thrill (cheering and getting excited), and financial gain (sought out by the industry as a whole).
For many, the life of a human has a much higher value than the life of an animals - however, that does not mean that the life of an animal has no value at all. As stated in Earthlings, "it takes nothing from a human to be kind to an animal". What occurs in factory farms, and in many other situations as described in the segments of companionship, clothing, entertainment, and science, shows humans at their worst - abusing their superiority and not accepting any responsibility for their actions. People do not have to treat animals the way they do. It is unnecessary and makes me ashamed. However, I am so happy that I am being exposed to this information, because -
"Ignorance is the first line of defense - but is breached by anyone that wants to know the truth".
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Language
Today was the first day of Animal Planet. It was even better than I expected. In high school I took a class that was very seminar based that focused on lot of human rights issues. This class has the same sort of feel – except that it focuses on animal and human rights, and that all of the students want to be there. I struggled with my class in high school because only about fifty percent of the students had prepared for seminar each class and only half of them would actually participate. I can already tell that this class is going to be much different.
In class today we watched a short clip of a French philosopher talking about the word “animal”. He claims that simply using the word animal is offensive and violent. Lumping all non-human living things together is a crime. I had never thought about this before. It made me think of words that humans use to lump certain groups of people together - often insensitively. For example, when someone references an Asian person, they might say "that Chinese person" assuming that the person is Chinese. That person could easily be of a different Asian descent such as Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc. By lumping groups together, you loose the sense of the individuality and the intimacy of knowing the identity of another person - or in this case, the animal.
Immediately I thought about the Bible and human's relationship with animals through scripture. I was brought up Catholic and believe that scripture is the true work of God. However as I have gotten older, I have begun to realize that scripture can be misinterpreted, taken to an extreme, or not followed at all.
Pertaining to animals specifically, scripture tells us that humans have complete domination over animals.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Genesis 1:28
Adam was also given the duty of naming all animals. The fact that all the animals have a name is significant. It means that they are individual species, not just “non-human”. By calling them “animals” it lumps them all together. Animals have names because they are different from each other. WE are technically animals, even though we may be religiously given power over non-human animals.
When God granted Adam the responsibility to name all the animals, it implies intimacy. Not only is the animal an individual, but there is an inherent closeness when naming something. It is often said that it is harder for a child to give away a pet when it has already given it a name. The dominion that Adam was granted was not a tyrannical dominion, but rather the dominion of a shepherd. I believe that God gave humans dominion over animals so that humans would care for them and respect His creation.
Whenever I have thought about or discussed vegetarianism in the past, I have always thought it was not for me because I am Catholic and God gave me the right to eat animals. I now realize how narrow and closed minded this thinking really is. In no part of the Bible did God grant humans the right to drag turkeys hung upside down by their legs through scalding baths completely conscious as Foer describes in his novel, Eating Animals. In no way does God condone the treatment of chickens when they are crammed by the tens of thousands into tiny shacks. And certainly I would hope God does not tolerate humans dismissing these acts as “okay because humans are superior”. Yes, animals may have been created so that we can use them for food. But they also enrich the earth, provide us with companions, and demonstrate God’s power and creativity. We can eat them, but they absolutely do not need to be tortured in the process. That does not reflect the intimacy that God bestowed upon the relationship between animals and humans.
In class today we watched a short clip of a French philosopher talking about the word “animal”. He claims that simply using the word animal is offensive and violent. Lumping all non-human living things together is a crime. I had never thought about this before. It made me think of words that humans use to lump certain groups of people together - often insensitively. For example, when someone references an Asian person, they might say "that Chinese person" assuming that the person is Chinese. That person could easily be of a different Asian descent such as Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc. By lumping groups together, you loose the sense of the individuality and the intimacy of knowing the identity of another person - or in this case, the animal.
Immediately I thought about the Bible and human's relationship with animals through scripture. I was brought up Catholic and believe that scripture is the true work of God. However as I have gotten older, I have begun to realize that scripture can be misinterpreted, taken to an extreme, or not followed at all.
Pertaining to animals specifically, scripture tells us that humans have complete domination over animals.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Genesis 1:28
Adam was also given the duty of naming all animals. The fact that all the animals have a name is significant. It means that they are individual species, not just “non-human”. By calling them “animals” it lumps them all together. Animals have names because they are different from each other. WE are technically animals, even though we may be religiously given power over non-human animals.
When God granted Adam the responsibility to name all the animals, it implies intimacy. Not only is the animal an individual, but there is an inherent closeness when naming something. It is often said that it is harder for a child to give away a pet when it has already given it a name. The dominion that Adam was granted was not a tyrannical dominion, but rather the dominion of a shepherd. I believe that God gave humans dominion over animals so that humans would care for them and respect His creation.
Whenever I have thought about or discussed vegetarianism in the past, I have always thought it was not for me because I am Catholic and God gave me the right to eat animals. I now realize how narrow and closed minded this thinking really is. In no part of the Bible did God grant humans the right to drag turkeys hung upside down by their legs through scalding baths completely conscious as Foer describes in his novel, Eating Animals. In no way does God condone the treatment of chickens when they are crammed by the tens of thousands into tiny shacks. And certainly I would hope God does not tolerate humans dismissing these acts as “okay because humans are superior”. Yes, animals may have been created so that we can use them for food. But they also enrich the earth, provide us with companions, and demonstrate God’s power and creativity. We can eat them, but they absolutely do not need to be tortured in the process. That does not reflect the intimacy that God bestowed upon the relationship between animals and humans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)