Racism, Vivisection, and Other Horrors on the U.T. Campus

http://a4.vox.com/6a00cd972959d44cd500e398a9405c0004-500pi
Ole Miss, THE most Confederate campus in the nation.

When I first toured the University of Texas I couldn't help but notice a pattern in the various statues of men that appeared on the main mall on campus. Most of the men enshrined in stone were either leaders, politically or militarily, of the Confederacy or other leaders, such as George Washington, who "as everyone who has visited his plantation knows, he was a slave owner (Slavery and U.T.?)" . At the time, I thought it a little ironic that these statues were here. What did Jefferson Davis exactly have to do with the University of Texas? Why was Woodrow Wilson, the most racist president in the 20th century, also enshrined?
As a student of history, I soon learned that all of these statues were erected about the same time, around the mid 1910's, the midst of Wilson's presidency and a time when the Confederacy was romanticized. And ever since I learned that, I gave it no more thought. The statues represent an unavoidable history of U.T., much as the proud statue of Martin Luther King Jr. represents another aspect of Texan and American history. Texas used to be in the confederacy. We don't wave rebel flags at our games like Ole Miss, but we will never escape our confederate and slave owning history. I'm not proud of it, but I am also not ignorant of the fact that people a hundred years ago WERE proud of it. And that's the way it is.http://www.acigawis.co.uk/vivisection.jpg
On the confines of my treasured 40 acres another issue is brought up. Animals are experimented on or undergo vivisection in a windowless building where "there is no easily recognizable sign outside (Dissecting Vivisection)." I like to think U.T. is fairly progressive in its endeavors, so to hear that the University engages in possible research describes as "an archaic holdover from a less sophisticated era (Spiegel 71)." So what are my opinions about these suffering animals and the potentially useless experiments which they are subjected to? Well to put it bluntly, I really do not care. These working in this lab have a purpose for their actions, they are not being paid to torture animals for no reason. So I walk past this bland, windowless building, aware of what goes on inside and completely ambivalent. Does this make me someone without a conscience, a care for other living things? Perhaps, but for now, I have finals and passing my classes to worry about, not some decapitated quails.

Animals and Slavery

Wrong.

http://rustbeltradical.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/slave_auction.jpg

Slavery is one of the horrifically ironic aspects of America's early history. In Philadelphia, a group of old white men drafted documents promising freedom and equality for all members of American society. But at the same time, a hundred miles away in the same country, a black man was being forced to work in slavery simply because he was not white and he was from Africa. This dichotomy in taught was never to last, and eventually slavery was abolished, although the scars from this strange time still remain and effect the United States to this day.

So it is little surprise to me that people who regard our current treatment of animals as cruel and believe that animals as requiring many of the same basic rights we afford each other would compare slavery to animal rights issues. The claim is that slavery, specifically the enslavement of African in the United States, bears remarkable similarities to the way we treat animals for economic reasons. The belief is that animals have the right to not be treated as slaves, as objects, as commidites, in the same way that black have the right to not be treated in the same way.

Once again I am unmoved. My main point of contention? Black people were just that, black people. Not black non-humans, but black humans. What is so horrifying about slavery is that it was a system where human beings were willing to put OTHER human beings in such a horrifying system. Yes animals can feel pain, yes Blue the horse may have appeared "like a craze person (Course Anthology 317)," but does that mean they truly suffer like humans suffer? Was Blue aware of his enslavement, or was he simply distressed for an unexplainable reason? We may never know, but I find it a little hard to believe that Blue was dying of a broken heart, as Alice Walker (who I have immense respect for) believed so.

Not Wrong.

http://www.worldsmartkids.com/images/Cattle_Drive.JPG

I also disagree with Alice Walker in her claim that animals "were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men (Dreaded Comparison 14)." No I do not disagree with the statement on a factual basis. What I disagree with is the tone that Walker uses in her statement. Animals were not MADE for us, but we can still eat them if we want to, if they will provide for us nutritionally and economically. We cannot use black people as slaves because they are human beings as well. Nowhere in nature do animals use other animals of their own species for their own goals. Yes there is competition, even muder, but never slavery. That is why slavery is wrong: it goes against nature, humanity, and morality. Eating animals and using animal products does not go against nature...in fact, it is completely natural.

And that for me, in a nutshell, is why I will not even consider the "human and animal slavery" comparison.

11-19 Discussion

Just wanted to throw this video in there.

Do we have the right to treat animals however we want?

"Would you be able to call them “just animals” to their faces and ignore their suffering? The unfortunate answer is that this is what we do every day. We are faced with animal suffering, and we choose to ignore it" - Katherine

"It’s almost as if we are refusing to associate ourselves with those to which we belong because of some superiority complex. Maybe this is because there are so many differences between us and them." - Karisma

"Animals cannot mask their feelings, cannot hide their intentions. Do these traits make us human? If the answer is yes, I feel more ashamed than superior." - Maysie

"Regardless of whether you decide that animals are equal to humans, I feel that it's ridiculous that it took until I was 19 years old, in my freshman college english class, for me to become informed about exactly how speciesism is being acted out." - Lauren


How much do injustices towards our fellow humans reflect how we treat animals?

"Like the prisoners in the Stanford experiment, the girls are subjected to physically and “psychologically damaging situations” (Sadism website) early in their lives. As a result, they are “exploited as female body” (Anthology, 389). Women who endure this kind of treatment are viewed as no better than a dairy cow or a bulldog bitch." - Molly

"By blotting out the human like qualities in animals, we silence our conscience and allow ourselves to inflict pain." - Chris

"Language, in this way, proves that treating animals unjustly significantly affects our treatment of humans. Yet, “if our treatment and view of other animals became caring, respectful, and just, nonhuan-animal metaphors would quickly lose all power to demean,” and sexist words, sexism itself, would lose significance" - Helen

Do our higher cognitive abilities give us the right to treat animals however we want to?

"We are dominant; therefore we have full privileges in every arena involving animals. My primary argument to this is: SO WHAT?! So what if animals are on a “lower level” than us in terms of intelligence, so what if they don’t share our exact chromosomes?! It has been PROVEN for a majority of animal species that they have the capacity to feel pain, just like us. So what, because my dog cannot do my calculus homework or speak my language that gives me the right to beat him to a bloody pulp and skin him alive?" - Spin

Animals are just as capable of thinking and feeling as we are. They have shown incredible capabilities of acting humanely toward each other, as proved by the experiment involving macaque monkeys. It was shown that “87 percent preferred to go hungry rather than harm their fellow monkeys” when faced with the choice of eating at the price hurting the others." - Emily

How much power does language have in debasing other humans or animals?

"Dunayer notes that our language, whether we are aware of this or not, works as an agent in assigning social hierarchy" - Jade


"However, we consider animals to be inferior to us and use their names as derogatory terms. "- Hongrak

"These days, jokes are often made about women. However, I really don’t find them funny." - Emily
Are speciesism and sexism truly related?

"Much of this evil, this speciesism, has led to the use of nonhuman animal pejoratives targeted at women." - Helen

"As long as women anywhere are treated as animals, no woman will ever escape the intertwinement of speciesism and sexism. As long as cultures continue to inflict evil upon one another, humans will “‘remain unbridled beasts and will go on producing Hitlers and other monstrosities’” (Anthology, 377)." - Molly

"Regardless we can definitely point to our mistreatment of women and use it as a tool to avoid speciesism. We can use the degradation of our own species through sexism as a warning. Power leads to more power, and unchecked power leads to subservience, and subservience leads to suffering." - Chris (really like the Yoda-like sequence at the end there)

"Additionally, I can see where Dunayer is coming from when he discusses how the decreasing of speciesism can help to decrease sexism." - Emily

What accounts for mankind's capacity for evil and sadism?

"Peer pressure…I like to think this is the reason people can diverge from their naturally good-hearted tendencies." - Chris

"If we are capable of abject evil, we all have the potential for good. I do not think it is beneficial to dwell on the negatives. As I have said before, that engenders hopelessness and maybe even a tendency to accept that that is “just the way it is.”" - Katherine

"Unlike Costello, I feel that evil is nothing but humanity’s suppression of naturally good forces that exist within all of us. Let us work to embrace emotional intelligence and ultimately justice. If we put behind our own wants to embrace the needs of others, there is only room for good." - Chris

An animal rights issue I REALLY care about!

How we treat animals = how we treat people?

dearkitty.blogsome.com

One of the most contested aspects of the animal rights debate is about whether or not animals have the capacity to feel compassion on the same level as people, and in that regard how that should affect how we treat them. As I have said in different posts, I believe this topic of discourse to be irrelevant to the my main point, that we as the dominant species of this planet have the right to eat, wear, and do whatever we need to with animals.

And most people in our class and most people in general will agree with that sentiment. But what most people cannot bring themselves to accept is the enormous capacity for pain we as this dominant race are willing to inflict on animals in general. They do not deplore the steak on their plate, but they deplore the massive factory farms that lead to its creation. This is where the debate on whether or not animals have some of the same capacity for empathy and compassion as we do comes into place.

One of the many tactics used by animal rights advocates is to show the human being's capacity for evil, even towards his own species. The famous Stanford prison experiment of 1971 showed how normal, everyday undergraduates could be transformed into guards that "exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies (Sadism website)." The human capacity for evil is great indeed, and very frightening, but what exactly does this have to do with animals?

Many people would claim that by treating animals as horribly as we currently do will somehow translate to how we treat our fellow humans. They point to the Holocaust and slavery as examples of how, if we treat other humans as animals, our capacity for evil is greatly enhanced.

"How can animals look you in the face (Course Anthology 397)?," Derrida asks. Simply, it cannot. The slave-owners were wrong and Nazis were wrong because they were hurting members of their OWN species, as much as they refused to believe that. A pig is not a human, which is why such comparisons have the tendency to offend people. The belief that mistreating an animal can somehow lead to mistreating people holds little weight in that regard.

fourthbranchofamerica.com

A similarly misleading belief is represented in Dunayer's article where she argues that by insulting woman by calling them specific animals, we are devaluing both animals and woman. I disagree. We are simply ONLY devaluing women. "Cow verbally abuses women by identifying them with the abused cow (Course Anthology 390)" argues Dunayer. Exactly. A cow is not as intelligent, does not have the same moral capacity, does not have the same propensity to think in abstract manners, which is why this insult is so gross and debasing. But to argue that this somehow stems from a cruel lack of empathy is rather ill-founded in my opinion. Animals to animals on a societal basis does not lead to massive cruelty to fellow humans, and and this argument has little weight.

A Less Heated Look at Animal Rights

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/chicken-slaughter-01.jpg

Vegans, vegetarians, and proponents of the animal rights movement disagree with me on basic fundamental aspects of human being's relationships with animals. To me, a human being is the ultimate apex predator, a tropic level we rose to that enables us to do whatever we want to with animals. They have no say in what we do to them, positive or negative. A vegetarian who objects to eating animals based on moral reasons has, I believe, a skewed view of ethics and morality.

The animal kingdom (of which we humans belong to) is built upon the foundation of a complex web of inter species relationships. Some species are prey, some species are predators. That is the way it has been since the onset of life on this planet. Is is therefore unnecessary and useless to apply moral issues to the fact that we eat animals. Any animal exhibits pain and the will to live, but how much of that is a conscious feeling or simply instinctive reactions to specific situations? We will never know, and it will never actually matter in the web of life.

Morality only applies to interactions between human beings. Even before humans entered this world, the lion has always mercilessly stalked the zebra, the newly hatched chick of a sea bird has always pushed out its weaker siblings from its nest as their mother watched, the wasp has always layed its eggs in a spider as its offspring eat it alive. Nature has no room for morality when it comes to animals eating each other, and it never will.

http://k43.pbase.com/o6/72/664372/1/74348755.TSFyISXP.IMG_7339.jpg
I'm not saying that people can have personal relationships with animals. Or that humans need inflict unnecessary pain on any animal. Ted Hughes beautiful description of a captive jaguar, whose worn down body is adorned by his head, which "is like the worn down stump of another whole jaguar. (Course Anthology 376)," sent shills down my spine. In fact, I've had many personal relationships with animals myself. But it in the same way that I have never once felt compassion for the terrorist our army mercilessly destroys, I will have no empathy for the cow who had to be slaughtered for the meat I eat for enjoyment and nourishment. The relationships I have with animals are different than the relationships I have with people. I care about Dimitri because I care for him, I am responsible for his well doing, and I think he's cute. But I would never for once consider him as being the same level as my family or deserving of the same treatment. If he was a random tortoise with no relationship to me, I would do nothing from preventing a fox from cracking his shell and eating him. That's how nature works, and I will do nothing to change it, and I value animals from a purely "elementary, unreflective level (Coetzee 110)."

Grumpy Ol' Jose, sitting in the corner, munching on some pork rinds

http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/wp-content/uploads/cow-slaughter1.jpg

If anyone read my last two blog posts, you would know that I started them off with disclaimers about my potentially offensive diatribes. I lead this post with the same warning. I am not trying to offend anyone in our class, or anyone outside of our class for that matter. I am simply stating my opinions as a rational human being, the most intelligent and powerful creature on this Earth.

Which leads me to my first point. Animals ARE inferior to people. Thus we have the right to eat them, hunt them, use them for clothing, test medicines or perform experiments on them that could be beneficial to human beings. The value of using animals in entertainment is slowly but surely losing supporters, including me. There is no reason to have elephants and tigers perform idiotic tricks that serve no purpose. I do believe the world would be a better place without Shamu or circuses, if only because they are completely unnecessary. Go on a safari or go whale watching. That is a much better alternative than seeing elephants stacked on top of each other.

But I digress. I still believe that eating animals is in no way a moral issue that human beings must face. There may be a day that animals are no longer needed to be killed for meat, a day when a cheaper, more healthy and tasty replacement for meat is found. But for now, I will look forward to crawfish season the same way I look forward to football season.

Eating animals is something that is necessary for my diet and something I enjoy doing. Plain and simple, and that will never change. I do not care how the food is prepared and I never will care. I also find comparisons between animal slaughters and mass murders such as the Holocaust asinine and should be prevented at all costs. Elizabeth Costello asks me to "pardon the tastelessness of the following" claim about Treblinka's similarity to a slaughter house (Coetzee 66). No, Elizabeth, I will not pardon you. Even if all of the 11 million people slaughtered by the Nazis in the "Good War" were able to pardon you, I would not. By pardoning you, I am entertaining the idea that somehow pigs are equal to human beings. I am not saying that you should not have the right to compare the Holocaust to animal slaughters. I am saying that I believe that your argument has no ounce of credibility when you bring up the holocaust, and I am personally offended.

And in the issue of clothing and scientific research. If researching and torturing animals (I will not dance around this word, what animals go through in those labs IS torture) can benefit even ONE human being, than it is worth it. That's all I have to say about that. But clothing is another issue. I do not agree with the practice of fur farming because it requires the use of wild animals for a wasteful and unnecessary industry. Plus, furs look f-ing stupid. But I do not at all have any moral qualms about wearing leather. Leather comes from cows, which are domesticated and anything but facing extinction. I do not care how it is made, as long as it is made. Leather makes for great boots and great belts, part of my everyday attire. I therefore have no reservations against the leather industry.

Animals will always be a big part of my life, that is without doubt. They feed me, they clothe me, they spark wonder and fascination with nature, and they wonderful to care for in specific situations. But I will never believe that animals have anything resembling the cognitive abilities of people. Doniger's interesting observations about animal language includes a thought provoking line: "[animals speak], and we refuse to grant them the dignity of listening to them. (Course Anthology 355)." This may be the case, but I will never think a dolphin will have anything relevant to say to me other than "Feed Me" or "Don't Hurt Me." A dolphin may wish to communicate to me that it wishes for me not to hurt it. But if the dolphin is tasty, nutritious, and has enough members in its fellow species that harming him would not endanger his species existence, than I will harm it without hesitation. I bring back the same analogy from my last post, does a dolphin EVER show sympathy or mercy for the thousands of fish it will inevitably kill in his life? No. As a fellow "Earthling," a fellow animal, how can anyone expect me to show mercy for a dolphin if I need to harm it for my personal benefit?
http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/dog-meat-22.jpg

I think one fascinating aspect of this discussion that I have not yet touched on is how I feel about eating dogs. Well to put it bluntly, I don't care at all. Dogs are loyal and fun, but they have been bred to be that way. Their ruthlessly efficient predator cousins, the wolf, is not nearly as loyal or charismatic (in most people's minds, to me wolves are beautiful example of evolution at its best: fierce, determined, powerful). Our society does not eat dogs simply because we view them as pets, and it would be strange indeed to eat animals which most members of our society share emotional ties with. But if another society somewhere in the world feels the need to raise dogs for consumption, I can say nothing about it. Indians can just as surely attack me for eating and wearing their sacred cows, so how could I attack a Korean for eating dog meat?

As disorganized and messy as this post was, I hope it helps explain my viewpoints. I also hope that anyone reading this appreciates my frankness and honesty. I do not care about animals I eat, wear, or benefit from experimentation on them. And I never will.

Respone to entirety of Earthlings.

http://cogtoronto.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/male-chicks.jpg

Watching this film in class, I was well aware that I was the minority in my opinions and how I was reacting to the entire film. I hope anyone who reads this is aware that I do not mean to offend or simply provide a contrary opinion because I find some sort of pleasure in doing these things. I am giving my honest reactions to this film and how I feel about animal rights.

I decided to wait until I saw all of Earthlings before I decided to respond to it. I went into this film having seen select parts on the internet (namely the fur trade section) so I was well prepared for the graphic images that were to come. I had also spent much time viewing videos on websites such as PETA about animal rights abuses (some, like the cows hanging with their throats slit, were recycled into this film), so the graphic nature of the film did not affect me very much.

I finished the viewing feeling surprisingly unmoved by what I had just seen over these last two class days. It was evident that many of my classmates were deeply moved by what they had seen. It was testament to the power of images and media in eliciting certain emotions in people. But I left the classroom completely unaffected, and I hope to explain why in this post.

In a similar response to our class's trip to the PETA stand on campus, I did not agree with many of the basic messages the movie was trying to send. I do not, and never will, consider animals equal to humans and am a self proclaimed "speciesist" (which according to the Microsoft Word is a word that does not exist) and have no moral reservations about it. I do not care in the slightest how my food is prepared, as long as it is tasty and will not make me sick. This may sound astonishingly harsh to someone who had just seen the disturbing and graphic images of this film. But I feel that anyone who lives in our modern society, eats meat, and thinks nothing about it shares the same opinion as me. If they say otherwise (especially after seeing this film), they are truly, and sadly, lying to themselves. They do not care about how food is prepared and they never will.

I still think it is important for people to see this film however. I agree with some issues that the film brings up, like how factory farming can lead to serious pollution and disease epidemics, but this is a completely separate issue from whether or not the animals should suffer. If someone makes the commitment to eat meat or use animal products or go to zoos and circuses, they must be aware of the suffering that animals go through in all these industries. It is than up to them to respond appropriatly. If one were to see this film, deplore the suffering they see, than head to Chick-fil-A after wards, they are hopelessly lost on where they stand on any animal rights issues.

Besides my lack of concern for animal rights, one of the main reasons I was not moved by this movie was because I disagreed with how the movie was put together. Frankly, in a simply critical analysis of the film, I felt that it too often appealed to people's weak emotions rather than stating real and concrete concerns about animal rights, and the film was hopelessly disorganized.http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/3049364690_6a110a267e_o.jpg

The moment I realized that I was at odds with what the film was trying to tell me was the scene of the Japanese dolphin slaughter (again, images and movies of which I had seen many times in my life before). The narrator, to a background of convulsing and dying dolphins, states "these are benign, innocent creatures, and they deserve better." At this moment, I began shaking in anger and quickly scribbled "HOW ARE DOLPHINS INNOCENT OR 'BENIGN'"? One of the main tenets of the film was that humans do not have the right to consider other animals as inferior and such we do not have the right to harm them. At the same time, we cannot apply human morality rules to animal behavior and cannot use the excuse that just because animals sometimes treat other animals just as callously as we do it does not give us an excuse to harm them. But "Earthlings" will not hesitate to call a dolphin "innocent" or "benign" using the same descriptions of morality that we are not allowed to apply to them in order to justify harming them. If you are going to consider a dolphin an innocent creature, than I have the right to ask: Would a fish who lost his entire family to a dolphin consider dolphins innocent or benign? Probably not. But fish aren't cute and can't do awesome tricks, so who cares, right?

The point I am trying to make here is that it is unfair to apply human emotional and moral attachments to animals, when it is natural for animals to consume and harm one another. I do no agree with the dolphin hunt from a PURELY conservation standpoint: it is simply not sustainable to kill that many dolphins every year. But if dolphins were as numerous and easy breeding as, say, deer, than I would have no obligations with this hunt. Animals will always be killed for the benefit of another species of animals. Always.

As the final montage of animals living out their lives in peace, away from the clutches of the tyrannical human race, I began to notice an interesting trend. Barely ANY of the animals shown were anything other than warm-blooded birds and mammals. Why? Don't reptiles, fish, and invertebrates have the same right to not be harmed as mammals and birds. According to Earthlings, yes, but at the same time the film producers are not above to appealing to people's sympathy with cuter and more beautiful animals than, say, the common house fly. Who cares if a fly gets zapped, right? They're just useless germ spreaders. But when a horse gets slaughtered for its meat, it is a crime against nature.

So I leave Earthlings steadfast in my opinions regarding animals. I still love studying and learning about animals, and love my pet tortoise Dimitri more than anything in the world. But I am aware he is just a turtle, and that's all he ever will be. He means something to me because I have invested a relationship with him. If I did not consider him a pet and if he were as tasty as pork, there probably not be much stopping me from firing up some turtle soup, as heartless as that may sound. I will never understand the point Earthlings was trying to make by showing long graphic videos of what goes on in animal industries. It serves no purpose, and to someone like me who does not have a weak stomach and is confident in his feeling towards the meat, fur, leather, medical, and animal entertainment industry, it is hardly an effective tool to make me change my opinions.

Compassion, Empathy, and Sympathy

There are many words for the different emotional responses that human beings have towards one another. Empathy, sympathy, and compassion are just a few of these responses that define human interactions with one another and with other living thing. In many ways, the ability to empathize, sympathize are strictly human traits, while at the same time it is difficult to acertain if these traits are what truly makes one "human."
One of the most interesting aspects of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is the question of what truly makes on human. Phillip Dick contends that is the ability to feel compassion and empathize with other beings is and integral part of the human condition. In the dystopian future, Androids are judged upon their ability the feel compassion for animals and humans alike. But technology has advanced so much that fake humans and animals are almost indistinguishable from the real thing, as Milt points out, "with those disease circuits they're building into the new ones!" (Dick, Chapter 7) It raises an interesting dillemma, one that modern man rarely has to deal save for specific situations.
One of these situations is in the form of the difficult issue of people with certain defects that can render them virtually lifeless vegetables, completely dependent on others to survive. Is it fair to consider these people "human"? In many ways, they share traits with the androids of Dick's future world, the inability to express compassion or even emotions, not because they're not programmed to, but their physical and mental disabilities prevent them from being able to. But in most circumstances, most people would find it despicable to treat these individuals as anything less than human, and the only time anyone would find it ok to allow these individuals to die would be out of an empathic justification that death is a less painful and more humane existence than the one they have now.
So what is about these people that provokes empathetic emotions from others? I truly believe it is because as fellow human beings we can see ourselves in these people. Any simple genetic defect or disease could reduce us to the same state as them, so they deserve nothing but the upmost respect that we afford other human beings. They are equal in our eyes, as they HAVE the innate ability to empathize like us, but simply cannot because of a defect. Androids on the other hand, have no such ability and will never have such an ability. They are machines created by mankind and their emotions and behaviors have been prescribed by humans, whether intentional or not.
It is this fundamental difference that also applies somewhat to animals. While androids are a unique circumstance that we as humans have not yet had to deal with, our interactions with animals are a daily occurrence in our lives. Most people are not entirely certain if animals have the ability to feel for others, to see themselves in others, or to feel anything resembling compassion other than other members of their own species, which may simply be instinctive behavior that they do not fully process. Animals, unlike the theoretical android, cannot speak and thus it may be easier for humans to brush them off as emotionless or feeling-less. If one is to believe this, it is much easier to treat animals as nothing else other than food, target practice, or entertainment. It is in many ways a similar concenpt to the idea that "one effective mode of persuasion in the arts and humanities is the history of a person, for the history of a few specific people may call forth more of a genuine reaction than endless summaries of statistics about millions of people in general." (Abstractions website)
I personally believe that animals do not have the ability to empathize, to feel for others, or to sympathize, to be "affected by the suffering or sorrow of another (Course Anthology 274N)" in the same vein as human beings. Therefore, they do not have the same rights as human beings. At the same time, I do believe that animals have the ability to suffer, and thus is I believe it is important that we as an empathetic and intelligent species do our best to reduce suffering in all walks of life. Does that mean I'm going to put down my juicy angus steak burger anytime soon? Well, you're going to have to convince my taste-buds that the potential suffering of a cow is not worth the deliciousness. And that's a battle I do not think anyone will be able to win.

Confessions of a Speciesist

Honesty is a virtue that has a varying signifigance in our culture. I am never completely honest in anything I ever say. If I was, I hardly think I would have many friends or socialize well with others. I believe all interactions with other people involve some sort of deceit. And I find nothing wrong with that. I just hope that anyone reading this understand I am being completely honest, even at the risk of offending anyone.
Yesterday, our class took to a trip to a PETA information display on campus. Before we even arrived to the PETA stand, I already knew how I would respond to the display. At first, a mix of shock, sadness, pity, but, in the end, a total lack of empathy.
I have seen enough horrible images in my life that seeing a pig undergoing anesthetized castration hardly moved me (I feel like I sound like a battle-hardened Vietnam Vet saying something like that). It's not to say I'm not disgusted by these images, I would rather not look at them. But they do not affect any opinion I have on animal rights or cruelty. The bottom line is, that I think bacon, sausage, brisket, burgers, jerky, chicken, shrimp, and fish is too delicious for me to really care about how the food is processed. Heartless? Perhaps. Ignorant? Maybe. But I stress my lack of interest in what goes on the food processing industry. As long as it does not negatively affect my health, I could honestly care less where my delicious food comes from.
And I would like it to stay that way. Ignorance is bliss, and it has never applied more in my carnivore lifestyle. This is not to say that I do not care about animals, but I only care for the animals that are relevant in my life. I would never hurt my beloved Dimitri, mostly because I love him and I do not think he would taste very good. The beautiful birds that I cared for at the zoo were magnificent and I would always feel pain when a gorgeous bird was discovered dead (even though it only happened once, and he was very old). But I had absolutely no qualms with killing baby mice by hand and chopping them into pieces to feed a bustard chick.
So while I appreciate PETA persistence and passion for their mission, I was not at all affected by their display. If anything, I was slightly offended by their comparisons of animal slaughters to tragedies in human history. Relating the Cambodian holocaust to the yearly slaughter of pigs is, in my opinion, incredibly insulting to the millions of innocent Cambodians affected by that tragedy. But I understand where PETA is coming from. To them, the slaughter of pigs is as important and tragic as the Cambodian holocaust. But I do believe that this appeals to too much of an emotional aspect of the human condition, and prevents proper discussion about animal cruelty, something the Human Society does a much better job of. So I walked away from Peta completely unchanged or moved as meatitarian.

Project 2

The way people define themselves depends not only on how they see themselves but also on how they think others see them. I have often found it particularly difficult to define myself and what matters the most in my life. I am not very passionate about anything at all, save trying as hard as I can to get away with putting the least amount of effort possible in anything I do. It’s my M.O., my prerogative, and because of that I think people may seem me as careless or unmotivated.

But everyone, including me, has something that keeps them going, something that motivates them more than anything. This motivation can spring from a person’s various passions. Money, power, and success are driving factors, but it is truly one’s passions and joys in life that drives them day to day to continue what they are doing.

A significant passion in my life is learning about and doing everything in my 19 year old college self’s ability to protect wildlife. As human beings continue to expand both in population and industrial scope, more and more wildlife species are being pushed to the brink of survival. Myriads of magnificent species of creatures, from seemingly insignificant insects to monstrous and breathtaking whales, have bleak futures that without active protection from our own kind may not survive so that generations of our off springs can appreciate them. These animals have taken millions of years of evolutionary change to perfectly adapt to their environments. It is such a crushing irony then that it can take less than 100 years of human exploitation to eradicate an ancient species all together.

Some of my most cherished moments in life have been encounters with wildlife. I'll never forget as a pod of over 200 common dolphins zipped beneath and leapt over the waves around the boat taking me and my family to Channel Islands National Park off the coast of Santa Barbara, California. I'll always be haunted by the the deep, foreboding howls of Howler Monkeys in a Panamanian jungle. The majestic bald eagle feeding fish to its chicks in a Virginia swamp will be a sight I'll tell my grandchildren about. And the sight of a baby bear stuck in a tree near the shores of Lake Tahoe will always bring the hairs on the back of my neck to stand. Why? Because his enraged mother was surely somewhere near by...

To witness a rare or endangered species of animal is becoming increasingly rare for members of my generation. The famous adage about never appreciating something until its gone rings truer now than ever before. We look in a mix of regret, shame, and sadness at our forefathers who recklessly slaughtered the buffalo of the great prairies, harpooned shocking numbers of great whales, and haphazardly covered America in a plague of DDT. It is difficult to blame anyone in those situations, when nature seemed like an endless bountiful resource. But it serves as a great warning to our generation, who increasingly must be responsible for the careful maintenance of our planet. We should learn to appreciate the rich, diverse ecology of Earth. Easier said than done.

Many school nights in my high school career were spent perusing the internet for information about threatened species of animals and plants. Some of the information was just flat out depressing. I had a sense of powerlessness in that I could do nothing in my power to help some of these amazing animals I was reading about. What could a 17 year old kid from Houston do to save the last 60 Javan rhinos from ruthless poaches and unchecked deforestation? How could I do anything to prevent the extinction of the last 10000 blue whales? I sure wasn’t helping, going on pointless joyrides with my friends, refusing to put the effort to sort my recycling from my trash, and carelessly leaving all the lights on in my house.

Eventually, my personal despair over the plight of worldwide wildlife forced me to take action. I could no longer just be a witness to what was going, as "the process of witnessing is dispassionate." [1] I donated to the World Wildlife Foundation, who I consider to be the preeminent organization of worldwide wildlife conservation and whose "ultimate goal is to build a future where people live in harmony with nature," [2] echoing my own personal sentiment. It was often very refreshing to check their site in my free time and check our the conservation projects going on around the world. Knowing that there was a large group of people out there willing to spend so much energy in something I found so important was a comforting thought that helped ease those sleepless nights.

I then took the quickest opportunity I could find to volunteer at the Houston Zoo. Even more than other zoos, the Houston Zoo is remarkable in its conservation efforts. The Zoo is practically responsible for the entire effort of reestablishing viable populations of the little-known Houston Toad. Even of more personal importance to me, they are doing an amazing job of keeping stable emergency captive populations of frogs and toads from Panama as amphibian populations there are crashing at alarming rates. Their collection of birds had birds so rare that they were nonexistent in the wild or their captive populations did not exceed over more than a couple hundred individuals. Something that is regarded as 'priceless' is anything that cannot be replaced in any means and has either or an emotional or financial importance to an individual. But to me, a rare animal such as the Micronesian Kingfisher, with only a few hundred captive individuals, is something that ultimately defines the term 'priceless.' Once a species if animal is extinct, millions of years of careful evolutionary adaptation will end with the final heartbeat of the last individual of a certain species. The stakes that ride on conservation practices are enormous, and I often forgot how crucial some of the work that I was involved was to the health of our planet.

It was refreshing to be surrounded by other people who cared as much as I did and to be involved in something that could potentially benefit the ecological health of our planet. When I worked in the bird section last summer, I worked with birds that were extinct in the wild or had populations lower than 500 individuals. I had to care for and keep track of hundreds of endangered Attwater’s Prairie Chickens, one of the zoos preeminent wildlife conservation projects.

It was a rewarding experience to return home each day, exhausted and very often dehydrated, knowing that I had helped to accomplish something very few people can consider they are a part of. As insignificant as my contributions may seem, it was important for me to do something, anything. I couldn’t have it on my conscience anymore that so many fascinating, ancient, and unique creatures were being driven to extinction as I sat there and did nothing.

I hope to somehow pursue my passion for protecting wildlife in some capacity as I grow older. Protecting wildlife isn't just a reflection of my passion, but it also represents another fundamental aspect of my personality: my strong sense of duty. I feel it is my duty to protect wildlife not only for my own fascination with animals but also for the health of our planet and so that future generations can appreciate wildlife outside of museums or books. How we treat nature and animals reflects on how treat ourselves, and it is important for me to do my part.

So while I may sometimes idle away an afternoon on a couch rather than working on a homework assignment or do any urgent chores, I could see myself spending weeks alone in a deep jungle, with nothing but my thoughts and the nature around me. I could see myself exhausting every bit of effort I had in order to collect some vital data on protecting Snow Leopards of Sumatran Rhinos. And what would motive me to do this? It is that passion, that desire to no longer be a witness, so that I may not longer "[not be] commited to one result or another, [or be] open to everything." [3] I feel it is is my duty to protect what fragile remains of an embattled Mother Nature I am still able to protect. And it this sense of duty that gets me off my couch, wipe the Cheetos crumbs off my T-shirt, and walk out into the world with a sense of purpose like nothing else can provide for me.

[1] Dass, Ram and Gorman, Paul. “How Can I Help?” in Composition and Reading in World Literature, edited by Professor Bump, 268. Jenn’s Copy and Binding, 2009.

[2] http://www.wwf.org/

[3] Dass, Ram and Gorman, Paul, 268

Word count with quotes: 1,438

Word count without quotes: 1,414

I'll be a leader...if you show me how.

We've all applied for various posts and positions in different organizations in our lives. We've all had to fill out various questionnaires or answered seemingly irrelevant questions pertaining to our character. One common question that I remember I always seemed to be asked was "What experience as a leader have I had?" I always felt that the perfect leader would never have to answer a question like that. The perfect leader would parcel out credit for his/her excellent leadership to his/her underlings, giving them a false sense of importance. I always struggled to answer this question. What in my short time on this world, when I have for the most part been following and learning from more experienced elders in our society did I ever really get an opportunity to become a leader? The space below these questions is usually where the famous and trademark Jose Ordonez bullshit would make its appearance.

My answers to these leadership inquiries would usually follow along the lines "Among my group of friends, it is usually always me who makes the tough decisions. My friends also find comfort in my advice and I always enjoy giving it." I always gave a slight cringe when I put that last period down. Why? Because I find it hard to ever believe myself when I wrote that down as many times as I did.

I find comfort in not having anybody judge my actions. By definition, a leader's every move is judged by his peers. He is constantly the center of attention, and the consequence of his actions rest mostly on his shoulders. I never could see the benefits of drawing so much potentially negative attention to myself.


According to Covey's observations about the human brain, one should "manage from the left, lead from the right.(Course Anthology 226)." By this he means that the best leaders do technical, procedural tasks with the more logical left side of the brain, while dealing with people and being a leader requires more use of the more emotional right side of the brain. Sometime I believe this philosophy is completely changed in my way of life. I often deal with others in concise, simple terms. I don't want my actions or intentions to be confused by anyone, which is probably why I am so bad with the ladies. But anyone who read my entry about my college application experience (in which I stupidly only applied to one college...guess which one!) knows that I can handle important, delicate matters with the emotion and diligence of a five year old. I definitely fall into the category of people who "have become turned off by time management programs and planners that make them feel too scheduled, too restricted (Covey 150).

Am I proud of these qualities? Of course! It makes for some damn good stories and DB entries. It also translates into amazing amounts of stress and parental headaches, I'm sure. But if you ask me, a life without some sleepless nights is a life not worth living. Does this kind of disorganized and seemingly lazy lifestyle translate into any sort of leadership skills? I would think not, but I think it can be applied to certain aspects of leadership. A leader must be flexible, willing to understand where everyone in a certain party is coming from. With my care free attitude, I find it very hard to become impatient with others and I never expect too much from anybody. I am also not afraid to speak my mind, something that can be little appreciated in our society but something I think is important for anyone to be able to do in order to have healthy relationships with others. The ability to empathize with others is also fundamental to healthy relationships, and I the fact that I am conscience of others feeling and motivations is proof that "conscience transforms passion into compassion (Course Anthology 237)."

The irony of all of this particular diatribe is that I am now in a class that stresses the importance of leadership. I hope to develop this skill, but it may take a lot of work and self-application before I get to a stage where I can call myself "a leader". For now, I'll let Molly lead the discussion.

December 15

December 15 – a date which will live in infamy. Or was that December 7, the day Tojo and Yamomoto thought it would be a good idea to mess with the ol’ red, white, and blue? In December of 2008, these dates were interchangeable in my mind.

For all of high school, I was spoon fed the belief that senior year would be a relaxing cake walk, a warm up for all the fun I would inevitably have in whatever college whose presence I would grace it with. Little did I know that Fall ’08 was one of the most stressful periods of my life. School got no easier, college applications began to pile up, and our football team went 1-8. So much for constant partying and 24/7 shenanigans (Editors Note: I still partied, much to detrimant of my diffential equations grade. Can anyone say 45 on my final exam?)

So what exactly does December 15 have to do with all of this? December 15 was the day that I was to find out about my Plan II application. There were many reasons for why this was such a stressful day. For one, I loved UT and saw Plan II as the perfect extension of my prep school education. Small classes in a giant school, complete with a national championship caliber football squad? I began salivating in August. But, as afraid as I was to admit it at the time, the main reason I was sweating bullets was the fact that I had only applied to one school…The University of Texas At Austin. And time was running out fast. My college adviser and my parents believed that I was on top of the application game. Unfortunately, I was so unwilling to even look at other schools that I never even bothered to start any other application. Lucky for me, on that fateful December 15^th afternoon…a large brown envelope secured my destiny.

To put it very, very lightly, I would have been screwed had it not been for Plan II. Is this the sign of an irresponsible high student, or the sign of a well intentioned young scholar confident in his path in life? I would like to argue the latter. As many people may not believe, I DO care about other things besides turtles, video games, and football. Learning is one of my many passions, and I truly believe that “the constitution of the human mind, that any kind of knowledge, if it be really such, is its own reward. (Course Anthology 166)” I have spent many a weeknight, nay, many a weekend perusing the galleries of wikipedia. Is wikipedia the most enlightening source of knowledge? No, but it sure is damn interesting. Challenge me at a World War II knowledge contest. I dare you.

I am not very grateful of fortune at ending up at Plan II. I honestly could not see myself being happy in other field. With someone with as varied interests as me, there was no way that at the tender age of 18 I could pinpoint what I wanted to spend four of the most important years of my life doing. I enjoy the more envolved nature of many of my Plan II classes. I never get bored in class, “because both sides of the brain and many intelligences are engaged, active involvement results in processing of information deeper than mere memorization. (Course Anthology 184)”

Am I in heaven at Plan II? That’s hard to tell, but let’s just say if the contents in that brown envelope that plopped in though the mail chute that December afternoon were a little different, I might have had a much different outlook on life at right now.

The Life of a Turtle: Reflections on a Spiritual Journey

If a random stranger were to ask me the seminal question “Who am I?”, I could probably provide the curious stranger with 19 different answers, one for each of my years on this Earth. This question seems to pervade all human endeavors since the dawn of mankind. It is inevitable, with no concrete proof of a God or any other spiritual being, that the question of the meaning of life will always be a pervasive aspect of the human experience. There is a never a day that goes by that I do not find myself asking the same questions: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I headed in life? I find it refreshing to ask myself these questions, and rarely do my inquiries ever take me to any sort of psychological or mental break down.

Central to my own experience as a human being is my relationship to animals. Whether it is caring for them, admiring them, or even eating them, animals form an integral part of my life. Some of my earliest memories as a child are standing by the turtle pond just north of the tower at the University of Texas, watching the grackles strut around campus, and taking care of my first pet, my box turtle Henry. These early experiences were important in shaping my appreciation for the animals in my life, and I am confident in saying that because of these experiences during my formative years, animals became a part of me and my soul.

The fact that animals form a large part of my being, it was interesting to take on the challenge of describing who I am based on a personal “totem animal” that I was to select through spiritual methods. A totem is “an animal, plant, or inanimate object with which a social or religious group feels a special affinity." [1] Finding a personal totem animal may seem like something which, as a college student in modern day America, will be impossible for me to accomplish. How, in this day in age of scientific litteracy and decreased emphasis on subconcious and spiritual experiences, am I to have any perception of what it takes to find my own personal totem animal? And how does this relate to describing who I am?

Well, to begin my journey, I sat through the “Animal Quest” audio exercise. The track begins with the light, rhythmic beating of what sounds like an ancient Native American leather drum. A man begins to calmly narrate the spiritual journey I begin to embark on. He asks me to envision myself walking through a natural setting, such as a forest. I close my eyes and I begin to walk through a deciduous forest, my feet crunching against the fallen-leaf floor and sunlight dripping through the tree branches. The man asks me to take note of what animals I see during my walk. I look down and all I can see are turtles. Many, many turtles.

What is the significance of all of these turtles? The soothing-voice man answers before I finish asking. He tells me that THIS is my totem animal. I am not at all surprised by this revelation but immediately begin to wonder if the fact that were turtles in my spiritual forest was simply due to the fact that I subconsciously knew beforehand what I would pick as my totem animal, or if this was truly an uncontrollable spiritual phenomena. Regardless, I continue with the exercise. The man asks me to put the totem animal in the palm of my hand and place it over my heart as it becomes one with me. To be honest, this was the part of the exercise that I did not really connect well with. I was then asked to have a conversation with my totem animal. I suppose I am just not really a spiritual person, but there was no way that I could even envision myself talking to a turtle and expecting any sort of response. But maybe that is one of the points of this exercise, maybe the turtle is not meant to answer me. Can I have a serious, even introspective conversation with an animal even if it does not answer back? I do not dwell on this dilemma for very long, and put the turtle back in its place and watch it munch of some tasty, juicy lettuce, seemingly without a care in the world.

As the turtle finishes his last tantalizing strip of lettuce, I open my eyes, finishing the exercise. Although I think I failed to grasp much of what the exercise was meant to enlighten me upon, I at least got out of it the core goal of this whole paper, my spiritual totem animal: the turtle. What kind of turtle? Well in my mind I pictured a sort of terrestrial box turtle or tortoise, a turtle that was not adept at life in water. This works well with me because these are the sort of turtle I particularly enjoy watching. Their nonchalant approach to survival and everyday living is something I envy, and maybe even try to espouse. A turtle, with his shell securely attached to his body, knows that he poses no threat to any other living thing, save for that fat, green lettuce leaf. In this way he is not skittish, nor is he easily frightened. It is this assurance, this awareness of his safety that I admire the most in a turtle. All of us have a unique place we go to for an escape, but a turtle is the only animal smart enough to carry it on his back.

With my new totem animal selected, I now have to ask myself “Who am I?” and “How does my totem animal fit into this?” I understand that for many people their journey in finding their totem animal may lead them to many paths and many possibilities before they finally decide on one animal. I think the fact that I was so confident that the turtle was my totem animal reflects on the fact that this truly is the animal for me. I could never see myself being any sort of mammal, life moves too fast for them (with the rare exception being a tree sloth…but I would like to think that I am not THAT unmotivated and lazy). Birds are too beautiful, too full of energy and joie de vivre. They’re just not for me. Fish seem to lack animation and seem to have no sense for their own existence. Reptiles seem to me like the perfect middle ground, lively enough to see signs of life in them, but also reclusive enough for me to relate to them.

This experience of finding my totem animal was a journey into uncharted waters for me. Never in my life have I reallyhad to make any sort of spiritual connection with anything at all. My family was not very religious and over the years they gradually made going to church less of a priority to the point that we no longer attend mass anymore. In fact, I have not personally been in over 4 years. But this aspect of my life never bothered me. Spirituality and religion always seemed to come hand in hand to me, so it was difficult for me to comprehend how I could do anything spiritual and not have it be related to religion.

I know realize the point of this totem animal exercise was to reach inside myself on a level that normal reality and conciousness could not make possible. I begin to realize that my connection with turtles is not just a fascination with their anatomy and lifestyles, but that I see myself in them and in that way we share a subconcious bond unexplanaible in normal human terms. My totem animal “[has] symbolic signifigance," [2] and because of that it is a reflection of my inner being. My totem animal is not simply an animal I think is cool or badass, it is an animal with whose experience reflects who I am.

As I consider myself well aware of who I am as a human being, it was relatively easy for me to select a totem animal and decide that it best fits me as a person. But I often wonder how other people perceive me. Do they see the same reclusive yet at the same time outgoing spirit? What would they choose as my totem animal for me? It is questions like these that sometimes keep me up at night or unable to be truly relaxed at a party. This may seem like I can never truly enjoy myself around other people, but fret not. I simply duck my head into my personal and mental shell, protected from any insecurities or worries I may have. I stick my head ou, with a new sense of confidence, assured by the fact that I have my own personal hiding spot to safely retreat to. And that, I know, any turtle milling about the turtle pond in the middle of campus, can relate to.

[1] Benet, Sula. “Encyclopedia Americana: Totem” in Composition and Reading in World Literature, edited by Professor Bump, 417. Jenn’s Copy and Binding, 2009.

[2] Andrews, Ted. “Animal-speak: The Spiritual and Magical Powers of Creatures Great and Small.” in Composition and Reading in World Literature, edited by Professor Bump, 421. Jenn’s Copy & Binding, 2009.

Photos:

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02/tortoisesSW_450x300.jpg

http://www.crystalinks.com/shaman.jpg

Psychological Test - INTP

I'm sitting here, tired as I could ever be, trying to explain in words my Meyers Brigg's quiz results. I'm stressed out, sleep deprived, and a little worried about my future at UT. But its all ok! I know I will eventually get things straight and my college experience will fly by in flying colors! only one things....I STILL don't have my course anthology.

Now who's fault is it that I don't my course anthology? Mine! No quotes for this assignment! My failure to truly adhere to Mr. Bump's advice on time management has left me with the inability to constantly pester the guys at Jenn's (those jerks!) about my long awaited course anthology. Do I feel like a fool walking in without my class anthology! Of course, but I have no one else to blame but myself.

Which brings us to my quiz results. Introverted, intuitive and perceiving? Interesting. Introverted and intuitive are labeled as some of my weakest characteristics at 11 and 12 percent, respectively. (Thinking the T in INTP, at 1%, is at this point not even worth mentioning) Perceiving is a whopping 67%. Really? Let me think about that one a little bit...

I supppose it makes sense though. Once one of my friends gave me the greatest compliment of my life: apparently, I am incredibly keen about my friend's social situations. Does that make me a sort of oracle from ancient greece? Or does that make me just a super alert guy to what's going on with my friends.... I honestly cannot say.

Am I happy with my position as an INTP? Well let me check with some other, more famous INTPs....David Hilbert? A famous German mathematician from the early 20th century? I guess I can relate with that....

But the point of this quiz was never to relate with any famous people in history. It was to understand more about myself. Perceptive it says...I've never thought myself as a sort of Yoda. If anything, I saw myself as a nervous, self-doubting Luke Skywalker!


Perception is a very admirable trait in a person, but I hardly doubt it really applies to me. But at the same time, perhaps that is something that is very definitive of my nature...never truly able to appreciate my own abilities and never truly able to admit they even exist. But hopefully, if anything, this class will help me to appreciate these qualities.