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?

Humanities Panel at the AT&T Conference Center

The Humanities panel at this discussion consisted of three very interesting and diverse speakers who present refreshing views on animals in literature.

Mr. Thomas Prasch was the first to speak and his discussion focused on the comparisons of expression in humans and animals. He believed that we could bring humans down to the same level as animals if we removed the concept of speceism. His supporting facts came from Darwin's study of expression that focused on a cultural difference between animals nd humans rather than the biological differences. Darwin saw expression as a legacy of the past with social influences. While some expressions are universal, they are learned through our environment rather than passed down genetically. Mr. Preach was a very interesting speaker. I just wish he would've expanded on his essay rather than reading aloud from it.



The second speaker was our very own refreshing Professor Bump. After the rather monotone lecture experience before, he brought some life to the panel and discussed cannibalism in the Alice books. He grabbed the interest of the audience through his quoting of the Bible and then questioning why animals are not understood to be included in the statement "thy neighbor." A brief discussion of The Alice in Wonderland movie where the difference between love of animals/good and hatred of animals/bad was portrayed in greater magnitude than the books. There was a chuckle amongst the crowd after he announced the IMAX 3D movie times for Alice at the Bob Bullock Museum.



Professor Stiles was the last to speak on the panel. She drew very interesting conclusions on the novel Dracula and its influence of vivisection through the author's brother. She explained that Dracula exploited animals and humans for the purpose of materialistic science and thus clearly supported vivisection during a time in history when animal rights were very strong. She cleverly proposed the idea that this novel may be revenge science fiction to the vivisection issue. The question of whether vivisection circulated around Victorian Society as a popular metaphor was then proposed and followed by the example of Dr. Seward in the popular Dorian Grey novel. My question for Dr. Stiles was whether or not society picked up on the anti-vivisection statements that she pointed out in the novel and whether or not it encouraged anti-vivisectors.

The Degredation of Man

The documentary entitled Earthings is one of the most emotionally powerful films showing the complete degredation of mankind around the world. As a southerner growing up in Texas, I completely identified with the issue of racism that was discussed in this class. The idea of speciest, however, is shocking to think that it applies to humans in every country of this planet. Watching this film left me in complete shock at the amount of pain we inflict on the animals we share earth with for superflous reasons. "Its nonsense to say that animals do not suffer because they ahve a lower order of intelligence. Pain is pain, conveyed by nerves to the brain, and tehre are other nerves than thsoe of inteliigence.... nerves such as sight, smell, touch, and hearing. And in some animals these nerves are much more highly developed than in man" (593). In India where the cow is sacred, natives sell their livestock so that they can be slaughtered in another country. Muslim faiths do not support humane slaughter and prefer to slit the throats of animals throats. Fur farms send electric shocks anally through animals to kill them that is not always sucessful the first time. In Europe and the US, we encourage these horrific behaviors by being avid consumers of leather and meat.





I spent half of the movie staring out our classroom window trying to avoid the horrific images portrayed on the screen. Halfway through, I realized that my actions mimicked that of most Americans. We avidly consume meat, purchase leather products, and wear fur, yet we refuse to see the reality of the pain that we inflict upon these animals. However, the words of this documentary pierce through your ears and demand your attention regardless if you see the images ore not. I feel as though if this film were viewed by every US consumer, meat consumption would drastically decrease. It's just that strong.



My reactions to this film would probably mirror those felt by locals who saw the reality of the Jews plight during the Holocaust. "Animals as victims are often 'voiceless,' with little or no attempt by others to advocate on their behalf. Historically, the Jews, for their part, were often silenced, ignored, and disenfranchised" (741). Like the image below, Earthlings contained startling pictures and video footage that will make the most immoral human question themselves. This image shocks us because we are killing humans. So why is acceptable for this kind of behavior acceptable for animals?

What is Sexism Really?

Sexism is defined as "discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women" (dictionary). I find it interesting that even in the dictionary women ar targeted as the victims of this term. Joan Dunayer's article discussing animal references to women is very eye opening and refreshing. She explaisn that women are referred to as foxes, cows, or chicks in derogatory terms. She also makes the connenction between gender and speciest when she accurately explains that "patriarchal men have depicted themselves as 'more human' than women because they have viewed 'human' as signifying everything superior and deserving"(791). Although it is not considered as great a deragatory term, we still refer to men as "jack asses" which associates them whith a donkey. Since we as humans use animals to refer to deragatory claims, can we assume that all Democrats are jackasses then? I think its interesting that using derogatory animal names for men is not nearly as popular or as culturally acceptable as those references when made towards women.



Although I support Dunayer's ideas, it seems as though she is putting the blame of human dominance over animals on the shoulders of men when women are equally as responsible. If you walk through Texas Roadhouse or Outback you will just a comparable amount of women eating a steak as the men. Dunayer explains that "Man divides all beings into two contrasting categories: members of our species and nonmembers. At the same time, it semantically assigns men to the first category, women as the second" (790).




I think that we need to accept that animal cruelty is inflicted by humans, not just man alone. We do not consider animals an equal species on this planet and that is a horrible misconception. We all feel pain. Unfortunately for animals, "being able to suffer is no longer a power, it is a possibility without power, a possibility of the impossible" (723). Our miscontrued idea of their subservience will eventually lead to the demise of several species in this world. We must change the way we percieve ourselves as one of the many species on this planet.

The Innefficient HMSLA & How it Should be Revised

American adults are currently utilizing the convenience of fast food to order three hamburgers and four orders of french fries every week. That's 90 grams of fat and 2,520 calories. The average person needs about 2,000 calories for a whole day. We have become obsessive meat eaters because of convenience even though we have a choice in what we eat. We continue this act even though we would be deriving more energy and lead healthier lives by eating food from the producer level. It is embarrassing that Americans support fast food restaurants, such as McDonalds pictured at the right, for their inexpensive convenient food without considering the inhumane slaughter animals suffer in order to keep prices low for consumers. They are able to inhumanely slaughter chickens because they are one of the many animals not protected under the Humane Slaughter Act. Prior to this course, I never considered where this meat came from or how the animals that were slaughtered led a despicable life and suffered inhumane slaughter. As Americans, most of us trust that our government in Washington is passing laws and enforcing them to ensure that we lead moral, safe, and respectable lives. However, the Humane Slaughter Act (HMSLA) is incredibly flawed to allow religious based slaughter houses to reap millions of dollars in profit at the expense of killing animals in the most inhumane and painful way possible.



The HMSLA is defined as a “United States Federal Law designed to protect livestock during slaughter.” It is expressed within this law that “animals should be stunned into consciousness prior to their slaughter to ensure a quick, relatively painless death.” However, the wording of this law allows for a “broad exemption for all animals slaughtered in accordance with religious law. This generally applies to animals killed for kosher and Halal meat market. Strict interpretation of kashrut generally requires that the animal be fully sensible when its carotid artery is cut.” Thus, we are using the excuse of a religious belief to inhumanely slaughter animals at little expense and reap profits. As pictured below, animals subject to kosher slaughter are placed in a metal holding device to keep their throats easily accessible to the slaughterer. Is it morally sound for animals to suffer in a kosher slaughter house to make larger profits while other slaughter houses that use anesthetic at the expense of the animals’ suffering? It is fairly obvious that animals sent to a kosher slaughter house have been dealt a vicious fate when compared to others sent to a non-religious slaughterhouse. Their slaughter is far less humane when comparing their levels of cortisol, a hormone produced in the body as a result of stress. “The cortisol range for both on-farm handling and cattle slaughter was to 63 ng/mL. The one exception was a kosher plant that inverted cattle on their backs for 103 seconds; those animals had 93 ng/mL.” Therefore, our government is endorsing animal cruelty through inhumane slaughter as long as it has a religious affiliation. Shouldn’t a secular based business feel some sort of remorse from financial gains earned by inflicting the largest degree of pain while killing an animal?



The answer is that they do not. Agriprocesors is “the nation’s biggest supplier of kosher meat, [and] was raided by US immigration agents in May [of 2008]. Nearly 400 workers, mostly Guatemalans, were swept up and jailed and are likely to be deported as illegal immigrants.” At the time of this article investigators were suspicious of the company’s “annual revenue of $250 million.” In addition, “the influential Brooklyn rabbi Moshe Robashkin, pleaded guilty to bank fraud in 2002 after writing $325,000 in bad checks related to a family textile business.” A study of Jewish slaughter houses in France found that “none of the abattoirs (French word for slaughter house and the act of slaughter) practices slaughter according to the Jewish rite. This is because they lack the equipment required to respect the demands of the ritual as well as those concerning the humane treatment of animals. Slaughter in accordance with the Muslim rite poses similar problems.” It is morally and ethically unjust for the US government to continue rewarding religious slaughter houses with large financial profits under a religious exemption that results in inhumane animal slaughter.

The US government would see far more success for animal rights if they allowed inspectors to return to the slaughter houses to ensure that all laws and provisions are being followed. “In 1978, the HMSLA was updated and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors were given the authority to stop the slaughtering line when cruelty was observed. Officially, slaughtering was not to continue until said cruelty, whether as a result of equipment or abuses by personnel, was corrected. However, the USDA eventually stopped authorizing USDA inspectors to stop the line, since doing so incurs considerable cost of time for the industry.” Because there is no regulation at the slaughter houses anymore, the degree of animal cruelty has more than multiplied. An official with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in Sioux Falls explained that “animal abuse is so common that workers who’ve been in the industry for years get into a state of apathy about it. Nobody knows who’s responsible for correcting animal abuse at the plant. The USDA does zilch. Especially in the hog kill, where you have hogs going through at eleven hundred an hour, the abuse is out of control.”
By keeping inspectors off the kill floor it seems as though the government is acting like the American public: they know animal abuse is occurring in the slaughter houses, but they do not want to regulate it in fear of rising meat prices or a decrease in convenience. Currently, inspectors work in offices where they are prohibited to inspect on the killing floor of a slaughter house. USDA meat inspector Dave Carney explained that if an inspector went to the kill floor today “he’d be subject to disciplinary action for abandoning his inspection duties. Unless he stopped the line first, which would get him into even more trouble.” Even worse, this inspector’s answer to the question of “So what’s the procedure for checking inhumane slaughter?” was that “there isn’t one.” If there were provisions and inspectors on the floor, then cattle such as these pictured at the right would not have been slaughtered while fully conscious. Therefore it is true and unjust that the HMSLA has no effect in the slaughter house and is merely a provision on paper to appease animal rights groups. Carney even admits that “The Humane Slaughter Act is a regulation on paper only. It is not being enforced.” It is unethical and shameful that our government approve a law to support animal welfare and then not enforce it so that those in the slaughtering business can receive financial profits at the expense of heightened degrees of animal cruelty.

The obvious and attainable goal for Americans is to encourage the US government to enforce the HMSLA by writing to their State Senators and House Representatives. By enforcing this act inhumane slaughter for thousands of animals could be reduced. On a day to day basis consumers should only by meat from markets who abide by humane slaughter. As a market based economy, boycotting meat produced by inhumane slaughter will result in decreased profits. As a hopeful result, slaughter houses will also push the government to allow inspectors on the kill floor so that they may endorse humane slaughter to increase their profits.

The largest constraint to the enforcement and revision of the HMSLA is that most American citizens are not aware of what it stands for, means, or what it lacks to regulate. Thus, educating the public on inhumane slaughter will be the largest component of gaining attention from Washington to make a real difference. Interest groups should educate young consumers on college campuses and those in the work force about the cruelty imposed on animals that do not experience a humane slaughter. Anyone containing any ethical or moral values will be distraught in hearing the true facts of inhumane slaughter that garnering support for animal welfare will not be difficult. Another popular misconception is the issue of feeling as though one person cannot make a difference. One person can join the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) Action Team where members are informed of “upcoming events and demonstrations in your area, breaking news, urgent alerts, and tips for how you can improve the lives of animals every day.”

A goal for the immediate future would be to revise HMSLA to give inspectors rights to inspect the kill floor and not permit exemptions to the law because of religious affiliation. Also, the law should be rewritten to include all the animals subjected to factory farming. All animals feel pain regardless of what anyone thinks. Humans do not have the right to determine which animals should be given ethical humane treatment and which should not. The public should show the powerful interest groups that have an established reputation in Washington of their concern with the current HMSLA. The easiest way would be to encourage people to express their concern to PETA or any other animal interest group so that this law can be revised to not allow inhumane slaughter at all.



Finally, a reach goal for our society and government would be to include provisions in the HMSLA to protect the entirety of animals’ lives rather than the few seconds it takes to slaughter them. Animals subject to factory farming have zero quality of life. Ethically, we have a moral responsibility to these animals that we bring into life for the sole purpose of consuming them. While they are alive on this earth they should be given a quality of life that allows them some time to act as an animal in their natural habitat. By granting a higher quality of life to these farm animals by allowing them sufficient space in pastures with open air, we would also be contributing to the profits of the American farmer rather than the businessman.

Word Count: 2318
WC without quotes: 1983

Racism at UT? No Way!

As an advocate for animal rights myself, I believe Alice Walker’s short story, Am I Blue?, deters readers from being persuaded to support animals. Instead, this story further polarizes readers into supporters and non-supporters with no grey area. If we are supporting Jeremy Benthem’s idea of Utilitarianism where “the proper end of all action is to achieve the greates happiness of the greatest number,” then this story is contradictory (756). I agree that Blue was not granted the greatest quality of life while living amongst his five acres alone and losing his friend Brown. It was the responsibility of his owners to insure that he was properly cared for daily so that he considered his comradary amongst other people and horses socially satisfying. However, to take the case of horse’s misfortune and apply it to all people of the equine industry is completely insane. Calling members of this industry “people who do not know that animals suffer,” is rather hypocritical coming from people who do not deal with horses on a daily basis (760). Communication and agriculture would never have advanced as it did without the domestication of the horse. Without them, the Mongols in Asia would never have been able to communicate across their vast empire and American settlers would have never been able to efficiently grow crops. One could argue that horses, as Blue, are not able to experience comradary amongst other horses and run free. However, human population has expanded into their territory so that their quality of life is greatest under domestication. You could argue that man has become the new friend to such domesticated animals as we share the same emotions with them as we do with human friends. Frederick Douglas accurately claims that "it should be the study of every farmer to make his horse his companion and friend, and to do this, there is but one rule, and that is, uniform sympathy and kindness" (783). Therefore, under Utilitarian principles, the domestication of horses has led to the greatest happiness.




In the case of considering the University of Texas as a racist campus due to its statues on the South mall is rather unjustified as well. As a visiting A&M Professor, Dale Baum believed that after “a stroll past the statues shaded by live oaks along the South Mall of the University of Texas suggests that the university has a soft spot for the Confederacy” (784). I would like to first ask Professor Baum if he had a complete campus tour to see the other stautes of MLK on the East Mall and Barbara Jordan on the North side of the Union. Although these statues are of African-Americans, it must be understood that associating the Confederacy with slavery is an innacurate and uneducated statement. The south fought for state’s rights and what they believed were individual liverties; however, following the unpopularity of the draft in the Union Lincoln delivered his famous Ghettsyburg address which gave the union a moral cause to fight the war, slavery. Lincoln’s prime concern of the war was to reinstate the union, not abolishing slavery. So to concede that the University of Texas is racist because they erected statues of civil war leaders is not only an insult but rather a statement of ignorance and disrespect. Yes, our founding fathers, such as George Washington, owned slaves; however, his statue is not overlooking the south malll because of that. Rather it is placed there because of his political importance in our nation’s history as the first president of the United States and his role as a revolutionary leader. So according to Professor Baum should Universities only honor leaders whose side was victorious? Would Baum be arguing that Robert E Lee’s statue was racist if he had accepted the Union’s offer to command their army? Should I see Professor Baum on campus one day, I would like to know where he earned his History degree and how he is authorized to teach it at a university level, even if it is TAMU, when he makes such unjustifiable claims.



While reading The Dreaded Comparison, I really thought it was another bleeding heart author using points way to abstract to persaude the reader. His comparison of a dog's quality of life to that of a dairy cow who "despite her years of service, when output drops below a certain point of profitability she is sold and slaughtered" (769). The above complaint that dogs "learn to win approval - and avoid future beatings or other punishments by - by suppressing his own desires and conforming to those of the omnipotent human who legally owns him" (768).





However, should you continue reading on to the section on Vivisection, you will be completely convinced and mortified at the racism and specism that exists not only in this world, but our own country. All examples of vivisection are repulsive to hear about, period. But to hear about the Tuskegee Syphillis Study where "white scientists, working with the racist hypothesis that syphillis affected whites and blacks differently, observed teh course of untreated syphillis in black males for forty years, until the experiment was exposed by a journalist and finally ended with investigtion," is disgusting and embarresing (779). This is an incredible article that could make any Caucasian person in the United States feel ashamed and embarresed. However, if we have learned anything from this class we know that our feelings after hearing, seeing, or reading the cold hard facts mean nothing if they do not lead to action. Rather than crying over these horrific things of the past, Majorie Spiegel uses these examples to persaude reader like you and I to change the cultural and social landscape of this country.

The Importance of Literature and Motivation

I believe that all written words contain a certain power that motivates individuals to an action. Whereas Philosophy and non-fiction contain facts that surprises readers, it is the poetry and non-fiction that pulls at the heartstrings of readers and instills a great sense of emotional connectedness. The most effective way to persuade a reader to sympathize and or understand your rhetorical purpose is to begin with the non-fictional cold hard facts to get their attention and follow it with a related fictional story where the emotional impact will encourage the reader to never forget and possibly act.


After reading selections from Elizabeth Costello, I learned the power of non-fiction and have gained an emotional involvement in the inhumane practices of slaughter houses. I believe that Coetzee's novel is effective because he includes non-fictional facts to get his point across. He explains that "We have become too many. There is no time to respect and honour all the animals we need to feed ourselves. We need factories of death; we need animals to feed ourselves" (97). While providing the facts that the human population has grown to the point that we rely upon factory farms to survive, the eloquent diction of these sentences has a powerful emotional influence upon the reader. By calling these factory farms "factories of death" it leads the reader to feel shameful of the way these animals are slaughtered for human benefit. Coetzee drives his point home with his famous analogy to the Holocaust by stating "it was from the Chicago stockyards that the Nazis learned how to process bodies" (97). Rather than crying over the world's misfortunes, the mix of fact and fiction encouraged me to act on this issue when I read these words.


Franz Kafka's "Report for an Academy" explains his personal viewpoint as an ape on intellectual understanding and human interaction. His report reiterates the idea that apes do not seek freedom when confined, "only a way out" (660). When confronted with a problem these animals want to simply find a way out to live day to day. However, Kafka explains that "one learns when one wants a way out. One learns ruthlessly" (662). I bring up this point to encourage people to understand that animals are extremely intelligent. Like Kafka, they think, feel, and plan. Costello claims that "the only organism over which we do not claim this power of life and death is man. Why? Because man is different. Man understands the dance as the other dancers do not. Man is an intellectual being" (99). This statement is glaringly included to shock the reader to see that there are some people in this world that believe this. As she says one page earlier, "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" (98). All organisms in nature are equal and to be considered in the "whole" she is referring to. Like Red Peter, we are all intellectual human beings.



However, should you be a reader seeking persuasion, non-fictional works will encourage you to truly understand and have an emotional attachment. Rilke encourages the reader to understand the emotional pain a caged Panther feels by opening his poem by stating "his tired gaze-from passing endless bars-has turned into a vacant stare which nothing holds. To him there seem to be a thousand bars, and out beyond these bars exists no world" (665). Do we as humans really want to rip the nature, disposition and life out of these animals by placing them in a cage? Not only are we placing them in cages at zoos for sticky ice cream coated children to poke at, but we are sending others to factory farms to lead a miserable life before they are killed for the sole purpose of feeding the human population.


I am not suggesting that we all become vegetarians. Rather, I urge readers to consider looking at the facts and non-fictional accounts to understand the effects we have on other animals. Why could we not simply begin to act by improving the quality of life of the animals living in factory farms.

Coetzee's Dynamic Characters

Coetzee’s powerful prose stand up for animal rights in a completely different viewpoint in his novel, Disgrace, that he has already presented in his Nobel Prize winner Elizabeth Costello. Disgrace shows us how an animals’ influence can change even the most corrupt of humans. Our protagonist is a person who believes that “normal humans have capacities that far exceed those nonhuman animals, and some of these capacities are morally significant in particular contexts” (638).



It is interesting that Coetzee brings up the common idea of avoiding the act of slaughtering, yet enjoy the benefits it provides. Wendy Doniger points out that “to treat animals compassionately is ‘very recent, very Western, and even very Anglo-Saxon,” because non-Western religions use their faith as an excuse for slaughter (641). She states that there is a “submerged guilt at the slaughter of animals” and that “another common ploy to assuage guilt – which is to say, to silence compassion – was to assert that the animal willingly sacrificed itself” (642). In Coetzee’s novel, David prefers not to see the slaughtering of animals but does not mind consuming them. He asks Bev, “Do I like animals? I eat them, so I suppose I must like them, some parts of them” (674). David begins representing the multitude of people who do not have strong feelings towards the treatment of animals because we push the negative ideas out of our mind. Lucy asks David “What would you prefer? That the slaughtering be done in an abattoir, so that you needn’t think about it?” (678). Unfortunately, this is the thought of all common people with regard to slaughterhouses and animal treatment. They would prefer to keep it out of sight and mind so that they can enjoy the meat they purchase at the supermarket. However, this character is changed by animals to gain a sense of compassion and sympathy for their well being at the end.


David’s transformation into a compassionate human being for other species completely defies Wendy Doniger’s point that “language is, I think, the place from which compassion springs. We cannot torment (or eat) the people we speak with” (647). Although she does refer to the Alice in Wonderland scene of The Red Queen telling Alice that we do not eat anyone we have been introduced to, this is still a horrifically false statement. Since we cannot torment the people we speak with, then she is implying that the human species has never engaged in warfare for personal gain, the innocent people of Darfur do not experience death every day, and the Holocaust never happened. Rather, compassion is the relationship that Barbara Smuts has with her dog when she describes it as “Safi and I are equals” (653). Doniger’s naïve statement encompasses the thoughts of most people who should understand the Holocaust analogy that “Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and things: they’re only animals” (725). Peter Singer is correct in stating that animals are “entitled to equal consideration of their interests, whatever those interests may be. Pain is pain, no matter what the species of the being that feels it” (638). Unlike Elizabeth Costello, David is changed for the better to feel compassion towards animals. Elizabeth Costello had great ideas, but “vegetarianism and compassion for animals are not the same thing at all” (643). Whereas she never acted upon her ideas, David buys a house close to the hospital so that he can continue his volunteer work at an animal shelter striving to put a humane end to the lives of animals that are doomed by their sheer numbers. It is fascinating that the same author can create opposing views and affects of the treatment of animals to appease to his diverse audience of readers on a difficult ethical matter.

In my opinion, we are all animals and share the same planet. The animals we eat, keep as pets, and seek to protect are no different than humans. I agree with Smuts that "the limitations most of us encounter in our relations with other animals reflect not their shortcomings, as we so often assume, but our own narrow views about who they are an the kinds of relationships we can have with them" (655). Just as Coetzee illustrated with David, animals will only enrich our lives.

Costello, A Woman With Great Vision and No Backbone

Coetzee’s novel Elizabeth Costello is an excellent portrayal to society’s lack of involvenement and understanding with difficult ethical issues such as the treatment of animals and the Holocaust. The fictional character represents an individual with great ideas who is acting as a bystander and too intimidated by her peers and society to act upon these non-culture abiding ideas.

The article comparing the treatment of animals to the Holocaust alerts the reader to realize the striking similarities that we as a society tend to put in the back of our minds because we do not want to think about. Reality is knocking and we must answer it! It is true that “animals as victims are often ‘voiceless,’ with little or no attempt by others to advocate on their behalf. Historically, the Jews, for their part, were often sentenced, ignored, and disenfranchised (741). Continuing with these graphic ideas it is also true that “Jews were transported via ‘cattle trucks’ and then cars to death camps. Cattle-cars are still common means of transporting animals to killing sites” (743). Szytbel’s article displays the reality society does not want to see, read, or hear about and validates the analogy between animal treatment and the Holocaust. Just look below to the picture of corpses. Doe the pigs not look the same as the humans? Thus, Elizabeth Costello is valid in using this analogy in her speech at Appleton College. However, she does fade back into society by not acting upon the issues she feels so passionate about.



Mrs. Costello’s speech at Appleton College was a strong performance for animal rights in the strong analogy between the Holocaust and animal treatment. She explained that “we are surrounded by an enterprise of degradation, cruelty, and killing which rivals anything that the Third Reich was capable of, indeed dwarfs it, in that ours is an enterprise without end” (65). Not only does she shock this crowd with this analogy but suggests that our treatment of animals is a similar genocide that has no end. These are very strong words that represent the reality of animal treatment then and now. After her speech she is unjustly accused of “anti-Semitism” and called a “fascist bitch” for showing the society the reality of animal treatment in a graphic way that they could relate to.

However strong her points may be, Elizabeth Castello also represents the people she attacks for the treatment of animals. She does not act on the ideas she lectures on. She even admits to “wearing leather shoes,” and “carrying a leather purse” before informing President Gerrard that “I wouldn’t have overmuch respect if I were you” (89). I do not believe that Elizabeth Costello is a fraud. She merely represents society’s preference to eat the meat in the comforts of their own homes without realizing the inhumane slaughter of animals because she prefers to only announce her ideas and does not act upon them. After she attacks fellow author Paul West at a conference in Amesterdam for writing about the killings of Holocaust officers, Costello is called out on her ill-action when an audience member asks her “How do you know?” (175). He continues to explain that “If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you yourself had written this book about von Stauffenberg and Hitler you would have been inflected with Nazi evil. But perhaps all that says is that you are, so to speak, a weak vessel. Perhaps Mr. West I made of sterner stuff. And perhaps we, his readers, are made of sterner stuff too” (175). The audience member’s remark brings up a double negative. One, he is right in that Costello is a weak vessel because she is strongly affected by the writing concerning these killings, yet she does nothing regarding the treatment of animals even though this is the part of her great analogy to the Holocaust. Two, even though West’s readers are made of “sterner stuff” they do not act upon the graphic imagery they are reading about.

Coetzee does an excellent job of portraying society through Elizabeth Costello. We know right and wrong, yet we choose to put the realistic inhumane treatment of animals out of sight and mind. The frustration the reader feels with Costello’s inability to be a hero and do something about the subject she preaches upon mimics the frustration we should feel as a society. The analogy between animal treatment and the Holocaust is real. It’s a graphic analogy that has been proven valid. So why then have we as a society, a culture, a citizen, or a race done anything about it??

Do We Need Vivisection Anymore?

Vivisection is defined as "a brutal scientific procedure that involves the live dissection of animals" (549). Today, the use of vivisection with today’s modern technology is morally and ethically wrong. I can understand that before the creation of computers to record, quantify, and store data, animal research may have been beneficial to human medicine and science. It seems impossible to me that we need further animal research in which these animals must suffer a painful death. For example, this puppy was burned to death so that we could study the effects of burns. May I strongly remind you humans are note animals! By killing puppies we will not learn about ourselves! Why must we inflict this torture? Are we really the "elite species on the planet?" (549).

Euthanizing mice by putting them in a tank that “when [it] was turned on, all oxygen was eliminated from the cage and the mice essentially suffocated to death” is absolutely disgusting. Further this author declared that “then a scalpel was inserted into the lung of each mouse to ensure the animal would not revive later. The process was extremely fast and the most humane way to euthanize mice” (558). If this is such a humane way to kill mice, then why do we not do that to dying patients in hospitals or prisoners suffering the death penalty? We as humans do not do this to ourselves because it is not humane! We cannot assume that they are “dumb animals, and so they are, for they cannot tell us how they feel, but they d not suffer less because they have no words” (555).

The student essay regarding the study of Japanese Quails to determine their sexual behavior and its effects on learning and memory is an extreme form of murder for ridiculous scientific advancement (553). A male quail was put in a cage with a normal looking female and a female with unnatural red feathers. After the male quail is excited and mates with the female with red feathers these birds must die so that humans can examine their brains. The quails “did not receive sedation or anesthetic as those chemicals would conflict with the aims of the experiment” (553). Rather they just had their heads cut off and the researcher peeled the skin off the bird’s head to get to its brain. The student admitted that “often the bird would release a final movement as this occurred (553). I agree that its “nonsense to say that the animals do not suffer because they have a lower order of intelligence. Paint is pain, conveyed by nerves to the brain (591). But don’t worry, science prevailed and discovered something miraculous. When the quail mated with a female he perceived to be different, “neurotransmitters generate initial excitement and interest” (555). So now we have killed hundreds of birds to find out that they get excited about mating with females who appear different. What a scientific advancement that the University of Texas is sponsoring.


Overall, I believe that Lewis Carroll maintains the same position on animals in his essay on Vivisection that he does in the Alice in Wonderland books. It is obvious that Carroll supports neither those opposed to vivisection nor the scientific community that supports it. He only cares about the animals that shape his children’s literature. This stance is obvious in his essay as he provides an account falsifying fallacies that both parties cling to. He claims that “man has an absolute right to inflict death on animals, without assigning any reason, provided that it be a painless death, but that any infliction of pain needs its special justification” (542). The first part of this quote is absolute fact. Man does have the right to kill animals just as they have the right to kill us. The second part contains the moral and ethical clause that the killing must be a “painless death” and needs “justification.” When conquering the fallacy “that it is fair to compare the aggregates of pain,” Carroll takes neither party’s position and claims that it is illogical for a “very large number of trivial wrongs [to be] equal to one great one” (543). The unbiased viewpoint in this essay puts both supporters and opposers of Vivisection on the bench to view their wrongs. While Carroll does not support vivisection, he also does not pledge allegiance to anti-vivisection supporters because of their limited view of animal rights. Rather, Carroll supports animals as a whole and is able to approach this matter realistically by presenting the pros and cons of each stance. Overall, Carroll is an all-around animal supporter that seeks to present their equality in his Alice in Wonderland books.