Rodeo.
Furs.
Tours at the Grand Canyon.
What has changed besides less of a need for the power to run machinery? Not much. Horses that are hurt or too old are shot, people flock to rodeos every year (especially in Texas) to watch men wrestle sheep, or bring a bull down by its’ horns, furs are worn by those who consider them fashionable. To me, it seems that we have reverted back to the ways of the English in 1800. Our two cultures have so many similarities, especially within the first few pages of A Measure of Compassion. The idea of having laws against animal cruelty were not accepted at the beginning of the 19th century, but within 21 years opinions changed and laws were passed and publicized greatly: “Capitalizing on this increased interest in humane issues, the society distributed twenty-five thousand abstracts of the new law during the next year.” [2]
By the late 1800’s I believe that the fact that “a humanitarian crusader could celebrate the fact that ‘to an increasing part of the race, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, this sentiment of tenderness for those of the sentient lower creatures which are capable of recognising [sic] it… has become an element in the spiritual life so strong that the continual violation of social obligations to them is a cause of pain and revolt” [3] has a strong tie with our definition of sympathy which states that sympathy is “the quality or state of being affected by the condition of another with a feeling similar or corresponding to that of the other.”[4] This especially goes with the fact that “he was strongly encouraged by the spectacle of squirrels begging confidently for food in public parks, rather than fleeing from feared torture.” [5] This connects directly with the idea of the sympathetic imagination because he (in this case I was confused on who the he was…is it Drummond, or a general he??) puts himself in the imagination of the squirrel, and perhaps he would have feared getting tortured by the humans, but the squirrels brave it out because of their need for food. If the definition of sympathetic imagination is “the ability of a person to penetrate the barrier which space puts between him and his object”[6] then he penetrates the barrier of human into rodent and the space of the two is nonexistent—he becomes the squirrel for an instant and takes pity.
Morality is the biggest part of animal rights, in my opinion. In "The Principles of Animals' Rights" Henry Salt writes, "Legislation is the record, the register, of the moral sense of the community; it follows, not precedes, the development of that moral sense, but nevertheless in its turn reacts on it, strengthens it, and secures it against the danger of retrocession. It is well that society should proclaim, formally and decisively, its abhorrence of certain practices ; and I do not think it can be doubted, by those who have studied the history of the movement, that…animals would be infinitely worse at this day but for…progressive and punitive legislation" which I believe goes hand in hand with the justification of punishing society for animal cruelty. I do, however, think that what is right and wrong is so hard to establish because of the differing religions and view of society.
The part where Ritvo describes the use of animals as transportation seemed like the use of animals as slaves. "The reports included many accounts of donkeys beaten either by their drivers, 'human brutes,' or by the 'heavy men and women' who paid to ride them" (139). Many times, there were so many animals used as transportation that seemed unnecessary. For some reason, the amount of animals used to transport connected in my mind to the scene in "300" where Xerxes is carried on an overly heavy platform by many slaves; although he is not a particularly overweight man, the platform is obviously too heavy for the slaves carrying him, just as the men, women, and cargo was too heavy for the animals used to transport them in the mid-1800's as described by Ritvo.
He treats the men like stairs, walking down their backs with no concern to their well-being, just as the men and women abused the animals, beating them with "severe blows" or "repeatedly pulled pieces of the wool from its back" (139).
The flip flop between opinions concerning animal cruelty are much like today’s: laws were approved in the mid-1820’s to 1830’s, then all of the sudden “every attempt to extend humane legislation encountered resistance and even ridicule, despite the abundant success of previous laws.”[7] I feel like this connects with today’s society because one minute someone is a vegetarian, saying that it is so cruel to eat meat, then the next day they abandon their principles for a juicy burger. I have changed my mind several times in the past week in our class discussion because each side has a valid point. (NOTE: I am not saying that I love killing animals, but I think everything has its purpose, and eventually worms will eat my decomposing body, then they will die, fertilize the soil, which helps the grass grow, which feeds the cow, which feeds me…) I am a firm circle of life believer. I do believe that a lot of people have certain eating habits because they are practicing self-control. Blake said in class that his “vegan-ism” didn’t so much have to do with animal cruelty as it did with the satisfaction of having such power and control over what he put into his body. Ritvo writes about self control and the relationship between the treatment of animals and humans, particularly children: “Thus the need to be kind to animals provided the occasions to exercise self-control, and children who refused to take advantage of these opportunities were seen as likely to grow up to be dangerous to themselves and other humans.”[8] Does that mean that they would have considered kids who do rodeo and wrestle baby cows then go eat a steak a threat to humanity?
Is this kid a threat to the rest of humanity?
Here is part or Lord Erskine's speech from when he presented his bull for "Preventing Wanton and Malicious Cruelty to Animals."
"Their freedom and enjoyments, when they cease to be consistent with our just dominion and enjoyments, can be no part of their natures ; but whilst they are consistent, their rights, subservient as they are, ought to be as sacred as our own ... Every other branch of our duties, when subject to frequent violation, has been recognised and inculcated by our laws, and the breaches of them repressed by punishments ; and why not in this, where our duties are so important, so universally extended, and the breaches of them so frequent and so abominable ?…The next generation will feel, in the first dawn of their ideas, the august relation they stand in to the lower world, and the trust which their station in the universe imposes on them ; and it will not be left to a future Sterne to remind us, when we put aside even a harmless insect, that the world is large enough for both. This extension of benevolence to objects beneath us, become habitual by a sense of duty inculcated by law, will reflect back upon our sympathies for one another ; so that I may venture to say firmly to your Lordships, that the Bill I propose to you, if it shall receive the sanction of Parliament, will not only be an honour to the country, but an era in the history of the world" [9].
[1] Ritvo, 125.
[2] Ritvo, 128.
[3] Ritvo, 126.
[4] Sympathy Printout
[5] Ritvo, 126.
[6] Sympathetic Imagination Printout
[7] Ritvo, 128.
[8] Ritvo, 132.
[9] http://www.animalrightshistory.org/timeline/animal-rights-law.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment