History of Animal Rights; AKA: My Excuse to Talk About Disney

History does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another. ~Max Beerbohm

Ah, history--- my bread and butter.

For the sake of historical argument's sake, let's just recap what these two articles really addressed, shall we? First of all, it is important to really hit on both sides' evolution of arguments, and we will try to be objective as possible here. 

Concerning Animal Rights Advocates                                                          

1. Religious zeal leads people to value compassion, sentimentality, and benevolence.The extension of that towards the creatures around us equals animal welfare. 

2. Argument 1: People of low class are the ones who beat animals, and I'm not not low class. Therefore, I should not beat my animals.

"By and large these limits corresponded to the line dividing the lower classes, already implicitly defined as cruel and in need of discipline, from the respectable orders of society. Sometimes this division led humanitarians to value animals more than the vulgar humans who abused them." ~Nature of the Beast

"The lower class of persons, to whom the care of the horse is entrusted, frequently possess less sense than those noble animals, which groan under their tyranny." 

Now, I'm not trying to jump to any conclusions here, but I do have a point to make, if I may get up on my pedestal. Now Alyxis did not necessarily hit on this specifically, but I'm going to. So, journey with me as we harken back to Animal Cops. This time I will focus on Phoenix, AZ. 

Animal Cops: Phoenix. Puppy Left to Die

Now most of the comments are made by small-minded and petty people, or rather people with very little forethought as to how their comments come across. I acknowledge this. I ask you to as well.  Still, I must make a point. Some were even too explicit to post, but here are just a few:

@skiddler777 the owner should die and go to helll and get *** ***** ******  and be sucking satans *** ****...hahaha
@MissBananns man ..swear to god people..soem of teh stufff people on this show do to poor inocent animals...i'd like to chain em up and just pistol whip the helll out of them..how DARE they do that bull****.
kragoots24 horrible. they should take the other dogs away from them at the least. assholes

And then there are a few that directly attacked the pet owners' race and socio-economic status. Alyxis  mentioned that the episodes in "Houston" usually highlight the poorer areas of the surrounding area. (I'm paraphrasing here, of course.) However, don't all of us unconsciously usually associate animal abuse with "low-class" people? (I only say this for affect, not out of judgment.) Is this really history, or is this going on today?

Now, here is my point. Is it wrong of us to "understand, exercise, and perhaps even enjoy the power implicit in ... superior social standing?" Is it corrupt in any way to "savor the delightful self-congratulatory feelings that welled up in one's bosom as a result of almsgiving or visiting the sick." (5)~ The Animal Estates. 

Perhaps I am not giving humanity enough credit, but I doubt that thousands of years of social acceptance and defense and justification of meat-eating and human domination will be wiped away by enlightenment within my generation. With that in mind, what is wrong with doing good out of selfishness--- as long as good is done? For that matter, I know the issue is the mentality, one in which we are self-centered and judgmental, however, if one does not behave in a negative way stemming from those beliefs, should it matter that they have them? In a perfect world, yes, people would have an epiphany and change their ways, but I would be satisfied with just the change in behavior.

Balaam and the Angel c. 1260, unknown artist. You know the story. An angel is sent to keep Balaam (bad guy) from doing awful things to the Israelites (the good guys). The God-fearing donkey stops in, well, fear of the angel. Because it stops,  Balaam beats it into submission. Then God has the donkey speak. Long story shortened, the donkey/voice of God chastises Balaam for the abuse. Balaam freaks out. Balaam ends up blessing the Israelites. The end.

Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?  ~ Bible, KJV, Numbers 22:28 

 In today's world, it would look a little more like this. And some guy would be in the audience bellowing, "GIVE HIM THE CHAIR!" Oh, how civilized we humans are!

And for that matter, I know that I insinuated that history does not repeat itself, but the resemblance here to the Bill Burns legal case is uncanny.

If I had a donkey wot wouldn't go,
D' ye think I'd wollop him? No, no, no!
But gentle means I'd try, d' ye see,
Because I hate all cruelty.
If all had been like me, in fact,
There'd ha' been no occasion for Martin's Act.

— Music hall ditty inspired by the prosecution under Martin's Act of Bill Burns's cruelty to his donkey.

3. This brings us to the next argument. Animal baiting and gambling and beating are associated with all kinds of other seedy and possibly immoral dealings, therefore it's bad. Those dangerous people of society needed to be suppressed. This is pretty self-explanatory. 

Read this article: http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-18/news/17197919_1_dogfighting-pit-bulls

4. Other reforms came into high-fashion and crossed over. Consider that education reform, religious revival, temperance, and suffrage were all hot topics around the 19th century. For example, Wilberforce wasn't the only one to double-dip. Many activists, in fact, would jump on the band wagon of moral reform. Those of higher status looked on the lower status as more cruel to animals. Protestants tended to look down upon Catholic's behavior. England would claim to be more progressive. America would claim to be more progressive. And everyone had barbed comments to declare their supremacy in the moral debate.

Thomas Taylor's Vindication of the Rights of Brutes (1792)... the same year as Wollstonecraft Shelley's Vindication of the Rights of Women. Just as a side note, for those who had brought up gender issues and the idea of women in the animal rights movement, here is one of the blights on the history. Taylor was satirizing her work. Then again, he also somewhat mocked Edmund Burke's Vindication of the Rights of Man. So there you go.
 

Concerning..... The Other Guys

1."People who walked hand-in-hand with  plague, famine, and dying children could ill afford to squander their affective capital on useless emotion." Simplified: It was/is a tough world. Deal with it. People don't have time to worry about your troubles. For that matter, not only don't they care about your animal's health and well-being, if you're not their family or friend, they probably don't really even care about your well-being either... or your kids'... or your granny's.  

2. Not caring was socially acceptable. Again, we revisit the idea that people only care about the value of a thing in relation to themselves. It seems to be a recurring theme, doesn't it?  "People whose livelihood depended on animals naturally noted the economically valuable traits of their stock, but otherwise animals were rarely observed closely." 

3. The slippery slope argument comes into play here. If somebody can't beat a horse today, what will it be tomorrow? A cat? A fly? A flea? What next? Flowers? Grass? This is where things are compounded and blown out of proportion into a larger change than many would be comfortable with. 

4. Counter-culture: "By the early years of the twentieth century antivivisection had become a fringe movement, appealing to an assortment of feminists, labor activists, vegetarians, spiritualists, and other who did not fit easily into the established order of society. The antivivisectionists' predilection for emotional appeals and uncompromising positions was both a symbol and symptom of the gulf that separated them from the mainstream humane movement." The Animal Estates

This is what I call the "I'm not a radical" argument. Resisters to the movement would cite examples such as these, to call animal rights activists violent hypocrites. Unfair? Yes, but it is done.

Newspaper article talking about violence as a tool of progress. 

Still, you have to admit that if the man above were wearing this tshirt, you would smile rather than scorn him.

I heart animals and people. However, if you want one, feel free to go here.
And if one chose to extend the respect of all life on earth to more absolutely include plants, this one is for you.

I mean no offense to vegetarians with this one. It is all in good fun. However, I do love plants, too. I would be severely malnourished if I took my convictions to such levels as this. 

 

Now that that is done, this brings me to the actual fun part---- children's literature. "Books written specifically for children were new in the eighteenth century, and from the first they aimed to improve and instruct, not just to entertain... Animals were quickly recognized as promising didactic instruments, and works of both juvenile natural history and moral fiction were loaded with uplifting messages about the need to treat them kindly." The Animal Estates.

Disney critters. Lion King, Lady and the Tramp, Aristocats, Fox and the Hound, Bambi... the list goes on and on. Like Eric said, these animals shaped our lives. Come on. Admit it. Everybody loves Disney. These were our childhood friends. They were what taught our young, impressionable selves to feel, to cry, to pretend for hours on end that we had a tail and fuzzy ears as we serenaded the world in sporadic song about our lives. Surely I am not the only one to see depictions of animals in movies and tv, especially in such a media-saturated world, as opportunities to teach young humans their place in the world. It is a learning tool. Perhaps that is what I most took away from the Victorian era's evolution of animal rights--- seeing children as a demographic to target.

We all read tales of animal adventures when we were little. Perhaps we should be informing children of the values we are discussing in this class and instilling humility and acceptance in them. Get them while they are young and impressionable. That is just a thought. 

 My niece, Tea. (If you notice, that is Simba over her right shoulder.) She is the future. Perhaps she won't repeat the same mistakes as our past. Perhaps her generation will think more globally and inclusively. Let us hope that, as I referenced earlier, history does not repeat itself. P.S. They do have actual kittens in their home, but because she had not learned how to properly "gently love the kitty" at this time, she was denied kitty privileges. It was a sad day. However, she drowned her solace in her stuffed animal's fur.

My nephew, Shae, my sister-in-law, Stef, and Tea again with my Unlce Chuck's sheep. This is the first step in education. And just so I am not only focusing on people and not enough on the animals, as the readings today made me aware of, might I state that that is a beautiful, healthy, and vivacious young lamb. I wish it a long and happy life.

Sources:
1. Berger,John. Reckoning with the Beast.
2. Ritvo,Harriet. The Animal Estates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ACFCafj9B0
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-18/news/17197919_1_dogfighting-pit-bulls