Law of the Jungle

The first section of the assigned Jungle Book reading brings many quetions to mind. One, how did the wolves and Mowgli speak with each other in a common tongue? Sure this is wrtitten from the point of view that animals speak English and that is the medium of communication, but as readers maybe we should assume that Mowgli adopted the language of Wolves and is merely relaying the tale back in English.



I think it is interesting that the dominant group assumes man like characteristics. For example, the wolves call themselves "Free People" even though they are wolves (866) and live under "The Law of the Jungle" (867). These wolves also meet at councils and discuss politcal issues such as leadership and hunting for the community. During the council, Shere Khan exclaims "No man's cub can run with the people of te jungle" (873). Here the wolves are described as people and Mowgli as an animal because the non-humans are the dominant species in this group. Was Kipling trying to influence children that animals are subservient to humans because our character traits are the strongest and most sucessful? To further this idea, Mowgli assumes a mental dominance over the pack with his use of the "Red Flower"(870) and parting words of "The Jungle is shut to me, and I must forget your talk of companionship; but I will be more merciful than ye are. Because I was all your borther in blood, I promise that when I am man among men I will not betray ye to men as ye have betrayed me" (874). Now, Mowgli assumes human characteristics such as compassion and the physical fear of fire to get his points across to his non animal "brothers."



The same issues of language and lack of identity come up in Kipling's chapter entilted the White Seal. These seals have "rules of the beach" and Matkah's wife refers to him as a "man" (878). Later on as Kotick is looking for "a quiet island with good firm beaches for seals t o live on, whre mem could not get them," Sea Vitch informs him to seek out Sea Cow who is referred to as a "person" (883). A dfferent old seal explains to Kotick that "there was once a story on the beaches that some day a white seal would come out of the north and lead the seal people to a quiet place" (883). Again the seals are referred to as "people" who are encouraged to "marry" in Kipling's rhetoric (883).

The Necessity of Nature

After reading several of Hopkins poems, it is quite clear that he possesses the qualities of a Transcendentalist during the Victorian era of extreme industrialization. It makes sense that “because his style was so radically different from that of his contemporaries, his best poems were not accepted for publication during his lifetime” (839). When Hopkin’s poetry was coming out, the Victorian novel that primarily consisted of social satire, was the heighth of literature during this time period. Bronte’s Wuthering Heights and Dickens’ Bleak House captivated audience’s by showing the social injustice of a socialized world.



Had the Victorian industrialized society not been obsessed with social satire at this time, Hopkins would have not only been popular, but influential. The sprung rhythm of the sonnet The Winhover helps to mimic the movements of this majestic like bird. The second stanza brings this rhythm to light when it states “Of the rolling level underneath him steady air. And stringing / High there how he run upon the rein of a whipping wing/ In his ecstasy! Then off, off forth on swing.” (841). The first line of this stanza mimics the smooth, soft, and slow gracefulness of the Windhover. Then the second line mimics the quick rushing and daring that the bird is highly capable of. Since this poem’s purpose is to unite man with nature, the transition from slow to quick rhythm could be to acknowledge Christ as the creator of all great natural things – a symbol Hopkins consistently uses.



Hopkins begins to mimic the devout compassion with nature in the same way Thoreau did in Walden where “this compassion leads to a death wish” (848). He shares compassion with landscapes and “the extinction of species that environmentalists has never personally encountered” (847). The environmentalists never took into account that human culture was included in the environment. Assuming Victorian England to be pride of humanity, India’s cultural and religious beliefs were not only subservient, but ridiculous. It took people with a natural mindset to understand that “if Hopkins’s ‘excessive sensibility’ is a ‘weakness of character,’ he shares it with the hundreds of millions of people who have lived in India in the last three thousand years” (849). Understanding nature and respecting culture is not a weakness of character; they are actions of educated respectable people. Had this refreshing thought in a time of colonial expansion and industrialization been given greater respect, there may not have been a need for so social satires regarding to the unjust life in an urbanized industrial landscape.



Other writers such as the American poet Robinson Jeffers showed man’s blindness to nature in their poetry as well. Hurt Hawks shows the greatest degree of compassion that man can feel. The hawk is “strong and pain is worse than strong, incapacity is worse”( 910). Thus, the bird is so strong that it will live in complete pain even though death would be much easier. The speaker uses the first section of the poem to describe the pain the hawk is in with vivid imagery. The close of this section reads that “You do not know him, you communal people, or you have forgotten him,” to show man’s lack of compassion to recognize the hawk’s pain or do anything about it. In the second section, the speaker does something about the poor hawk’s pain and “gave him the lead gift in the twilight” to end his misery (910).




Both of these writers take man’s inability to deal with nature and put it on paper in ways that the most speciest person can understand. Written at times when a link to nature would be the most crucial, the poems did not gain recognition until industrialization and urbanization had taken its tole.

Black Beauty - A Moral Lesson for All Ages

I really enjoyed how this novel could teach two different lessons for two different types of readers. As a child, it furthered my passion and love of animals, especially the horses I had the privilege of being around every day. Kids also learn good ethics about good and bad in addition to moral behavior through Black Beauty’s disposition. Now reading it as an adult, readers are able to put the complexities of the world aside and really consider human treatment towards horse s and any other animals.



These two points really come into play during the final two parts of the novel. While being whipped to pull an overloaded cart up a steep hill Beauty exclaims that “to be punished and abused when I was doing my very best was so hard, it took the heart out of me” (198). When the lady asks the driver to loosen the bearing rein and explain that fashion is not worth harming an animal, adults are persuaded to feel the sympathy that they probably consistently showed as children; the same sympathy that children show when they read this novel today. Another example is Mr. Skinners comments on Beauty after he has fallen from exhaustion. He sadly explains that “I have no meadows to nurse sick horses in – he might get well or he might not; that sort of thing don’t suit my business. My plan is to work ‘em as long as they’ll go and then sell em for what they’ll fetch” (204). Surely this unethical statement would pull at the heart strings of readers at any age.



Beauty’s respectable morals also teach young children a great lesson in how far a good character can get you in life. After all the suffering Beauty experienced during his lifetime, his final words are “ My troubles are all over, and I am at home” (213). These comments give the feeling of success by reaching the desired destination – home. It teaches readers that if you give life 100% you will reach your goals and dreams as long as you never give up on yourself. If this novel did not appeal to the different ages, then why are there so many additions in print with so many different covers? To appeal to all readers.

Highlighting Animal Cruelty in Black Beauty

It is interesting how animal cruelty is discussed in the different sections of this novel. The first section showed us how horses endured cruelty in the most common every day ways. The second section, however, shows us the more specific examples of how cruelty can exist by simply owning a horse.



The example of the Lady at Earlshall shows the ridiculous ways in which the desire to impress through fashion is ridiculous. The Lady's comment to York stating that "you must put those horses' heads higher; they are not fit to be seen" shows her agreement with animal cruelty for the sake of appearing classy and elegant (Ch22 pg 88). Medically, this is horrible treatment for the horse's hocks, stifles, and back. If these people saw horses as an investment or even a means of transportation, wouldn't you want to protect that investment? The problem is when it comes to the upper class in this time period, money was not an issue and there would always be another horse. This is a sad reflection on our species as a whole. We do not have the right to destroy animals for fashion.



This second half of the novel seems to magnify that the people of the upper class were the worst humanitarians in England during the Victorian period. We would like to have some hope in the Earl since he did not support the bearing reins when Black Beauty and Ginger first arrived. However, his comment that "the mare shall have a twelve-month's run, and we will See what that will do for her; but the black one,he must be sold; tis a great pity, but I could not have knees like these in my stables" (Ch27 pg109). I was shocked to read this because I thought we had finally met someone of the upper class with some kind of sympathy towards animals. The Earl, however, must be completely heartless to sell a horse that has gone above and beyond what he was asked to do, because of his appearance. Beauty's knees did not endure any tendon damage and would thus not affect his ability to be ridden or pull a cart. It is the need to have fashionable horses that determined his fate.



I am proud to say that I am not a part of that. A horse with the temper and talent such as Beauty and Ginger does not go overlooked in a show horse. They are given the upmost medical, physical, and mental care possible so that they can perform at their best ability possible.

Cruelty and Black Beauty

It is interesting how subtle a children’s novel can read from the perspective of an adolescent and an adult. I was always a horse enthusiast growing up, and read every young adult’s novel about horses. I loved the story of Black Beauty both as a novel and a movie. However, even after the fourth time I read the novel as a child, I never picked up on the blatant comments on animal cruelty from Beauty’s point of view.



The constant desire for horses to please was a common trait I had learned growing up on the ranch at home. When Beauty’s mother tells him that “the better [he] behaved, the better [he] should be treated, and that it was wisest always to do my best to please [his] master,” I was not surprised (Chapter 3, pg13). Yet I began to wonder if it were fair to domesticate and train horses to understand us as “master” and their fate to be determined by their ability to serve us. I am sitting at a horse show in Gifford, IL right now in front of my horse’s stall doing my homework. He does not look at me in fear nor does he seem miserable or unhappy. I have already shown him in five events this morning and he has given me 100%. But I wonder if he is happy competing as a famous show horse or if we trained him to think he was happy and to enjoy competing.



Black Beauty gives its reader the perspective of horse-human interaction from the horse’s point of view. The horse’s views of animal rights are not out of line and they persuade readers to understand their plight of bondage. The pony, Merrylegs, explains that “Boys, you see, think a horse or pony is like a steam engine or a thrashing machine, and can go on as long and as fast as they please; they never think that a pony can get tired, or have any feelings” (Ch 9, pg34). I can understand that at the time when this novel was written and horses were a means of transportation, that people would see them as we see cars today – inanimate objects designed to get us from Point A to Point B. However, we also want pretty flashy cars. Thus, Ginger shows her disgust of fashion when remembering Skye’s puppies that were “bleeding and crying pitifully; they had all had a piece of their tails cut off, and the soft flap of their pretty little ears was quite cut off” (Ch 9, pg38). She asks why humans don’t cut their own children’s ears to look “sharp” and in regards to how humans treat animals, I can’t answer that question. Its a fair point.



Since I run a horse training facility, I fully support John’s mission at the end of Part I. He explains that “many young animals are frightened and spoiled by wrong treatment which need not be; if the right man took them in hand. [He] always gets on well with horses, and if [he] could help some of them to a fair start, [he] should feel as if [he] was doing some good” (Ch 21, pg80). John’s point of view seems to be that society depends upon horses for transportation and that humans owe them respect and a proper quality of life. This idea is consistent with Sewell's idea that in "bustling Victorian London's society, transportation and industry was dependent on horse power" (837). This is why I feel as though showing my horse today is not a cruel where I force him to act as my personal slave to make me happy. Instead, he lives in a 12x36 foot stall at home with a large grassy turn out. He eats the best alfalfa hay from Mexico and sweet feed five times a day and get s ridden four times a week to stay in shape to compete. He has the utmost veterinary care, an air ride climate controlled trailer to ride in and me who would probably buy him anything he needed. When there are horses being turned out on interstates all over I-10 in west Texas because they can’t afford to keep them and the kill plants are closed, is what I am doing really considered cruel?



I do not think that I am cruel. I just believe that Sewell's novel was sucessful in persuading its readers to feel a "conscious awakening about the ethical treatment of all beings" (838).

Hypocrites Should Not Criticize

It seems to me that the Orientals pride themselves in their religions that encourage great fairytale things like “do not utter evil and harsh words. Do not censure. Do not try to injure others,” etc. (817). However great these ideals are of Janism, Confuscionism, and Hinduism, the better question to ask ourselves is who actually practices these principles and what do they really mean? Jainism admits that their ideal, Ahimsa, is impossible to obtain in its absolute form (818). So if it is impossible to obtain it, how do you get the rewards of it and want to follow it?



As far as Hinduism is concerned, they claim that “the cow is a gift of gods to the human race” and that it represents the Divine Mother that sustains all human beings and brings them up as their very own offspring” (828). I find this very contradictory as Mother Nature sustains human beings by providing them with resources to eat. If the cow represents the “Divine Mother,” then wouldn’t it make sense that the cow is there to provide sustenance to humans? If political discussions are dominated by “issues such as beef-eating,” then obviously all the Hindus do not follow this rule or it wouldn’t be a political issue (831).



The Neo-Confusion Manifesto cites five instances that the West must learn from the East. I find it interesting that their religions focus on doing no evil to nature and this manifesto does not cite once an argument against the Western world’s fascination about eating meat. Instead, it stands behind principles its own people do not follow to accuse the west of needing to sense “the presence of what is at every particular moment,” (832) gain an “all embracing understanding or wisdom,” (832) obtain “mildness and compassion,” (833) “wisdom of how to perpetuate [our] culture,” (833) and finally to learn the “attitude that ‘the whole world is like one family’” (834). Notice that these criticisms focus on western society’s culture. Rather than pointing to specific erors in Western thought and judgment, this manifesto chooses to use rather large umbrella terms to gain a sense of superiority through societal beliefs rooted in a religion that their own people do not follow.





Oriental religion, such as Jainism, put an emphasis on the “transcendence of God above nature and the dominion of humans over nature” and then criticizes the worldview as being “largely anthropocentric, [where] nature is viewed as being of secondary importance,” then why does their economy depend on transporting cows out of their country for slaughter(811)? It is absolutely hypocritical to criticize western thought when eastern foundations are not firm. These people do not follow these strict rules that their religions claim. Earthlings showed several starved cows being transported just outside of India so that their hides could be used for leather to sell around the world. Rather than writing manifestos about the moral corruption of the West and what we must learn from the East, maybe the East should actually enforce these ideals that they are so proud of. Hypocrite.

The Destable Human Through Time

James Turner’s insightful introduction to Reckoning with the Beast shows the disgraceful pattern of dominant human behavior. Even though “animals have lived intimately with man since before he was man” our pattern of species dominance and cruelty is traced back to the origins of mankind with the artistic painted images of horses on the walls of Lascaux (800). The fact that our dominance over animals has become a cultural trait passed onto new generations is detestable. Christianity’s very own Bible goes as far to explain that “every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you” (809). Like the famous Raphael painting below, it is a misconception that animal is on earth to provide food for man. Turner defines cruelty as “a desire to inflict pain and thus presupposes an empathetic appreciation of the suffering of the object of cruelty” (801). Yet until the 1700s, humans utilized animals as slaves for food, clothing, and transportation. Even during this movement of humanitarianism, Turner reminds us that it was animals were only given a small piece of sympathy for their plight.



John Lock made great efforts to changing English thought during this time period by explaining that “Nature always proceeds up the chain of being by minute gradations; distinct ‘species’ are no more than a biological convenience for organizing the study of what is actually a continuous, unbroken spectrum of natural forms” (803). As we have learning from the documentary Earthlings, we know that speceism and racism unfortunately go hand in hand. It should then come to no surprise that “all through the century writers tended to link together black Africans with apes” (804). Why is it that humans have always had the desire to group themselves in any way that made them feel and appear superior to others? By the 1700s, humans had already confirmed their dominance over animals so did they then see it necessary to begin triumphing over different races as well?



The Reverend Dr. Humphrey Primatt had inspiring writings that influenced many of the minds in this century by questioning the applicability of benevolence. By convincing the people that they were all under Nature he explained that “benevolence should shine upon man and beast alike, for, although our mental powers may place us ahead of all other ‘terrestrial animals’ in the ‘great Scale of Being,’ all creatures are necessary cogs in the divine machinery of Nature” (804). Since the doctrine of benevolence clearly supports and persuades readers to understand sympathy is associated with suffering, these words at a time of great religious revival were rather inspiring.



I think it interesting to consider how our lives might be different without our dominance over animals. Throughout human history, man has “depended upon animals for food, work, transport, [and] clothing” (795). We do not consider that “animals are born, are sentient and are mortal. In these things the resemble men” (795). Humans would have had to found other things to eat, pull their carts and plows, in addition to finding other means of clothing. It is clear that we depend upon animals. So why can we not respect this necessity and give them a humane slaughter and quality of life?