WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT: THE NEED FOR IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A thesis submitted to the Kent State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for University Honors

by

Joseph M. Sabo

May, 2012

Thesis written by

Joseph M. Sabo

Approved by

______, Advisor

______, Chair, Department of English

Accepted by

______, Dean, Honors College

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES...... v

LIST OF TABLES...... vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

My Personal Opinion, Not That It Matters...... 3

A Slow Process...... 7

The Importance of Emotion...... 9

Personal Bias...... 14

What This Thesis Will Not Cover...... 16

What This Thesis Will Cover...... 21

II. ANIMAL REPRESENTATION: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE NONHUMAN...... 24

Moral Schizophrenia...... 25

The Power of Language...... 29

Anthropomorphism: The Good...... 30

Anthropomorphism: The Bad...... 34

Anthropomorphism: The Ugly...... 41

The Animal...... 46

III. FACT VERSUS FICTION: UNDERSTANDING THE ACTUAL ANIMAL...... 56

iii Animal Intelligence: Vertebrates...... 59

Animal Intelligence: Invertebrates...... 64

Sentience...... 65

Mankind’s Modern Treatment of Nonhumans...... 68

IV. THAT ALL ___ ARE CREATED EQUAL...... 72

Discriminating Factors...... 74

Animals as Property: Ohio Law...... 76

Animals as Property: Federal Law...... 78

Animals as People...... 80

V. CONCLUSION...... 83

WORKS CITED...... 87

WORKS CONSULTED...... 97

iv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Modern Dairy Cow...... 6

Figure 2. Charlie the Tuna...... 35

Figure 3. Buzz, the Honey Nut Cheerios Bee...... 36

Figure 4. Seductive Chicken Skin...... 37

Figure 5. Mad Cow Commercial...... 38

Figure 6. Happy Cow Commercial...... 39

Figure 7. Swine Salvation...... 40

Figure 8. Local Restaurant Advertisement...... 41

Figure 9. Colonialism in Africa...... 50

Figure 10. Second Chances...... 86

v LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Morton Race Table...... 52

Table 2. Annual Animal Death Statistics, By the Million...... 70

vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For the past twenty-two years, I have been blessed with outstanding teachers, caring advisors, supportive friends and, most importantly, a loving family. This Senior

Honors Thesis is the product of their efforts. I want to thank my family for showing me the importance of compassion. We must do what is right because it is right, not because there is the possibility for personal gain. Thank you mom for loving everyone, despite the fact that the world contains many unlovable individuals. Thank you dad for protecting us, and, in doing so, teaching us to protect the planet. Thank you Julie for being my inspiration. Your selfless actions have helped this family to realize that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration. No matter what changes may occur in my life, I will always look to you for guidance, just as I did fourteen years ago.

A very special thanks to Romeo for being my friend. For as long as I live, I will never forget about you. I hope we will meet again someday. I would like to thank Brian for continually reminding me why animals deserve rights. Everyone should be more like

Brian. I am also extremely grateful for all of my human friends. Thank you Matt Gilly for making life fun. I truly believe that our friendship will one day become legend.

Thank you Todd Zelasko for teaching me the importance of self-discipline. You had the biggest influence on my transition from a vegetarian diet to a vegan lifestyle. You are a great human being, and the world is in dire need of men like yourself. I am honored to be considered your friend.

vii I thank Kent State University, the Honors College and my defense committee members for helping me complete this project. Specifically, I would like to thank Donald

Williams, Vicki Bocchicchio, Mark Tepsich, Vera Camden, Susan Roxburgh, Daniel

Berardinelli, Wesley Raabe and every other faculty member at KSU who has aided me in exploring this important subject. I owe my deepest gratitude to my thesis advisor, Sara

Cutting, for her unwavering support during every stage of the writing process. Without her assistance, this thesis would not have been possible.

Of course, there will always be individuals who are opposed to the idea of equal consideration when regarding nonhumans. Such resistance has motivated me to pursue a career in law. When empathy is absent, the legal system is needed to ensure that equality is maintained. This thesis has given me the opportunity to begin my long and, hopefully, fruitful endeavor into the . I am eternally grateful to everyone who helped make this first step a success.

viii I dedicate this thesis to every animal who has needlessly suffered and died at the hands of

human beings. I dedicate my life to protecting their children. May we someday learn

from our mistakes. CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

“Whenever people say ‘We mustn’t be sentimental,’ you can take it they are about to do

something cruel. And if they add ‘We must be realistic,’ they mean they are going to

make money out of it.” - Brigid Brophy (“Vegan”)

We live in a world where poverty is prevalent, disease is widespread and war is common. Recently, both the environment and the global economy have taken a turn for the worse, and, all the while, many humans still suffer under political systems that provide few rights for their citizens. Whether it is genocide, a natural disaster, or illegal drugs within a small community, there are an endless number of international and local issues that need solutions. It is undeniable that these problems require our full attention, but, in an effort to prioritize, we have wrongfully neglected a silent voice that continues to suffer under the most extreme conditions of cruelty and destruction. Animal exploitation regularly occurs on American soil, and it is even protected by the law.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the year 2010, 10.153 billion land animals were raised and slaughtered for food in the United States of America alone.

Furthermore, the U.N Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that over 65 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for worldwide consumption (“Report”). These figures do not include aquatic , nor do they consider the countless number of animals who die each year as a result of dairy farming, biomedical experiments, , extermination, euthanasia, fur production and leather manufacturing.

1 2

What do numbers like 10.153 billion and 65 billion even mean, and why should these deaths be considered significant, especially when compared to other serious dilemmas throughout the world? After all, the victims are just animals. Imagine, however, if the circumstances were different, and the details instead involved the raising, processing and destruction of 10.153 billion humans in the U.S. and 65 billion humans worldwide. If Homo sapiens assumed this role, then we would undoubtedly be faced with a situation similar to that of slavery and genocide. In fact, the number of fatalities would easily surpass every violent and devastating atrocity in human history. Of course, the public outcry would be monumental and our government would be forced to take immediate action in order to prevent further crimes against humanity.

Although the victims are not human, how is it any less wrong that animals be subjected to suffering and slaughter? Does it make sense from a logical, moral and legal standpoint to treat other living beings differently simply because they are not psychologically as complex as their human counterparts? The early history of the United

States was plagued by the presence of inequality against others based on a non- exhaustive list that included, but was not limited to, race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age and disability. Could the exploitation of animals be another form of unjust inequality? The concept may sound absurd now, but, prior to

1865, so too was the idea of abolishing slavery in America.

George Santayana, a Spanish American philosopher, once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (Santayana 284). Most individuals are familiar with Santayana’s famous words, but I believe that few comprehend their true 3

meaning. Rather than simply recalling the events of the past, we must recognize why it would be wrong to repeat certain actions. This recognition requires a full understanding of the characteristics that defined America’s history and the qualities that define us today.

Will our country’s future reflect a progressive society or one that has always remained static? In other words, has the slaveholder truly gone away or does he endure, just in a different form? In the 21st century, U.S. society still contains instances of prejudice and discrimination; however, we have made great progress as a nation because many of the most recognized forms of inequality have been remedied through the law. Does the existence of egalitarian laws mean that we have adequately applied the wise words of

Santayana to our own lives, resulting in a civilization that has learned from its most atrocious mistakes? My thesis intends to answer this question with a resounding NO, because while it may appear as though America has achieved a system that appropriately grants inalienable rights to all persons, we have consciously and unjustifiably omitted animals from this protected status.

My Personal Opinion, Not That It Matters

The argument in support of animal rights seems so clear and convincing from my perspective that I am oftentimes perplexed at how greatly opposed many humans are to the movement. My belief in extending basic rights to all forms of sentient life most likely stems from my personal experiences. One of my most vivid childhood memories was during my sister’s twelfth birthday party because it was the first time that I became aware of the ethical dilemma surrounding the consumption of meat. The entire family, including my grandparents, went to a restaurant to celebrate, and, while everyone was 4

deciding what to order, my sister asked a question that we have all wondered at one time or another: what type of meat is used in hotdogs? Despite the staff’s efforts, they were unable to find an adequate answer to her inquiry. My grandfather, with his unique sense of humor, only aggravated this awkward situation when he informed my sister that she need not worry, “because it was probably just made from meat.” It was at that moment, I believe, when my sister seriously began to consider the conflicting relationships that exist in the United States between humans and animals. On the one hand, while still retaining the status of property, the life of a , cat or other traditional companion animal has gained a significant amount of intrinsic value in Western society.

However, the value of and wildlife is commonly based upon their ability to be used for food, clothing, or entertainment. In other words, abusing a is considered a morally reprehensible act, yet causing a great amount of pain during the raising, transportation and processing of pigs, chickens, cows, horses, sheep and aquatic life, just to name a few, elicits very few objections.

Shortly after the incident described above, both my sister and I made the decision to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Not wanting to discourage responsible behavior that would effectively eliminate the health and environmental concerns associated with a meat-based diet, my parents supported our new resolution by also becoming vegetarians.

At the age of eight, I was too young to fully grasp the concept behind removing meat from one’s life in order to support equal consideration for animals; instead, I was encouraged to change through more basic and emotional motivations. First, I was following in the footsteps of my older sister. Unlike the child-parent relationship, which 5

is more authoritative in nature, I relied on my sister’s opinion because I considered her a trustworthy friend. This friendship inspired me to copy many of her beliefs and actions.

Her reasons for becoming a vegetarian were closely aligned with the philosophical approach of respecting the interests of all sentient beings. Although I shared her fondness for animals, the basis for my decision was slightly less complex. For the most part, I simply felt confident that my sister was making a correct, moral choice; therefore, it was only right for me to make the same choice.

Second, besides the positive influence from my family, I also faced an emotional conflict comparable to the one that my sister encountered on her twelfth birthday.

Ultimately, it was a single photograph, as shown in figure 1, which had the greatest impact on my conscience because it was so dramatically inconsistent with the traditional image of American farming. Instead of witnessing a healthy cow, like the ones depicted on milk cartons and yogurt labels, I saw an animal who appeared quite sick. As a result of genetic manipulation and harsh production methods, modern “dairy cows in the U.S. produce milk volumes that are two-thirds greater than those demanded of animals 30 years ago and 10 times more than they would produce in nature” (“Farm Sanctuary”).

The use of hormones for increased milk production not only generates pain and stress for the cow, but it also often results in mastitis, an infection which causes the enlargement of the udder (Gandhi and Snedeker). For whatever reason, maybe because it was the first time that I had witnessed the harsh realities of industrial agriculture, this image left me feeling guilty and disturbed for many months afterward. Sadly, figure 1 is fairly mild when compared to other instances of animal suffering in the meat and dairy industry. 6

Fig. 1. The Modern Dairy Cow (Lee)

Throughout my childhood, I enjoyed the company of animals. Our were considered members of the family, and my parents took special care to teach me the importance of respecting those animals. When I first examined the picture of the modern dairy cow, I was unable to find a valid distinction that would allow me to treat a cow, or any animal for that matter, differently from our pets. Besides having diverse physical characteristics, why does a dog deserve love, care and respect, yet a cow is only worthy of a short, miserable life consisting of basic nourishment for the sole purpose of a painful death? Like most Americans, I would never be willing to subject my companion animals to the cruel living conditions and inevitable slaughter that millions of cows experience each year; therefore, how can I reasonably justify the abuse and exploitation of any other animal?

7

A Slow Process

Ironically, it was the picture of a dairy cow that motivated me to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, yet I continued to consume dairy products for many years after giving up meat. In fact, it took me, as well as my parents, thirteen years to finally make the transition from a strict vegetarian diet to a strict vegan diet. At the age of eight, despite my knowledge of the abuses suffered by animals in the dairy industry, I was unable to remove animal by-products from my diet due to mental and moral immaturity.

Such a radical change in one’s life rarely occurs all at once; instead, it is a gradual progression requiring time, experience, determination and education. We have all been born into a culture that automatically accepts the injustices of animal exploitation.

Unfortunately, this situation makes it tremendously difficult to separate ourselves from harmful habits, even after we become aware of the consequences of our actions.

The obstacle I faced when attempting to remove meat, and later dairy, from my diet was similar to the hurdle that a child must overcome when learning to sleep in the dark. From the child’s point of view, the lights have always been on and they play an important role in inducing sleep; even though, in reality, the lights serve no practical purpose other than to provide comfort against irrational fears. To the adult, who has slept in the dark for many years, the solution appears simple: turn off the lights and go to sleep.

However, for the child, it is a challenging process that usually requires gradual weaning in the form of a nightlight. As a boy, I was afraid to give up dairy products because I did not want to lose my favorite foods; thus, I familiarized myself with the concept of ethical eating by first adopting a vegetarian diet. 8

I cannot hold others to impossible demands that I myself was unable to meet. I completely understand that making any major lifestyle adjustment is a step-by-step process. Still, everyone must take responsibility for their own actions within a reasonable period of time. Eventually, we must all grow up and put aside our childish fears of the dark. The idea of personal responsibility is best described by Henry David Thoreau, an early American transcendentalist. For Thoreau, in “Resistance to Civil Government,” a just society requires individual responsibility: “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right” (Thoreau 795). A democratic society is structured around the consent of the majority, but is the majority ever wrong? There was a period in American history when the majority of citizens believed it was acceptable to enslave another human being. Does slavery, or any other immoral act, suddenly become excusable if supported by more than fifty percent of the population? Thoreau states in his writings that no one has a personal duty to save the entire world by eradicating evil, “but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support”

(798). When considering the fact that most individuals contribute toward the abuse of animals on a daily basis by using and ingesting animal products and by-products,

Thoreau’s message of personal responsibility takes on a complex, new meaning that incorporates nearly every aspect of life.

Thoreau believed that individual responsibility was the solution for ending slavery. It was not enough for citizens to express their opposition vocally or through their vote; rather they must physically withdraw their support from the institution in order 9

to initiate change. Similarly, if it can be concluded that the unnecessary suffering and death of animals in American society is morally wrong, then it is everyone’s personal responsibility to give up meat, dairy products and any practice that entails animal abuse and exploitation. Although I condemn animal use no matter what the purpose, I am aware that modifying one’s behavior can be a long and difficult process due to different motivations and varying degrees of limitation. At the same time, however, there is no excuse for living a static life, one where moral choices are ignored simply because of tradition or the luxury of convenience. I am very proud of the progress that I have made throughout my early life, but it is important to never be satisfied with the partial improvement of one’s character. I still engage in many activities that have a negative impact on others; therefore, it is my responsibility to make the necessary changes within a realistic period of time. The ultimate goal should be a life that does not benefit from the suffering and death of other living beings, and we should constantly be striving for that goal.

The Importance of Emotion

As much as I may enjoy recounting the memories of my youth, I believe that my personal experiences also have a practical application when attempting to formulate a valid argument in support of animal rights. Even though I have gained extensive knowledge of the abuses involved in animal exploitation, along with an understanding of the various philosophical theories concerning animal rights, I continue to rely heavily on the same emotional motivations that inspired me as a child. Having more knowledge has assisted me in defending my choices with greater confidence, but retaining an emotional 10

foundation is significant because it allows me to empathize with others. The 21st century in Western society is characterized by extraordinary human potential, but, unfortunately, that potential rarely includes the capacity for compassion, especially when considering an animal’s well-being. In America, emotion is often perceived as a sign of weakness and irrationality. While in high school, my opinions were constantly disregarded by other students as being overly sensitive. According to my peers, “a real man eats meat.”

Oftentimes, decision-making based upon feelings is discouraged in favor of more detached, self-serving methods.

Empathy is a necessary element whenever making decisions that involve the rights of another living being. From a strictly logical standpoint, it would appear quite rational to only look after my own best interests in every situation. Southern plantation owners, before the Civil War, had no practical reason to abandon slavery, for it would only cause great economic inconvenience for themselves and their families. However, from an emotional perspective that considers the interests of the slave, ownership of another human being is wrong because of the harm that it inflicts on the person being enslaved. How would I want to be treated if I were that individual? Likewise, how a particular pig is treated at the Smithfield Packing Company in Tar Heel, North Carolina has no effect on my own personal condition. In fact, eliminating the production, slaughter and processing of those hogs would put many men and women out of a job, causing a great deal of economic hardship for countless families. When simply considering the facts without emotion, providing jobs and resources to millions of human beings should be a high priority; yet, how would you want to be treated if you were a 11

cow, pig or chicken? When all the factors are taken into account, which action causes the most harm: eliminating jobs that produce an unnecessary resource or destroying lives for the purpose of economic gain? Decisions based upon feelings seem illogical and unwarranted until your own life depends on such empathy and compassion from others.

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin was extremely influential when it was first published because it pulled at the heartstrings of human emotion. Stowe exemplified the horrors of slavery by “focusing her representation on the violated bond between mothers and children” and emphasizing the impact that slavery had on African

American families (Stowe 9). By using emotion as a common connection, Stowe was able to lessen the perceived gap between individuals of different skin color:

Sobs, heavy, hoarse and loud, shook the chair, and great tears fell through his

fingers on the floor; just such tears, sir, as you shed when you heard the cries of

your dying babe. For, sir, he was a man, - and you are but another man. And,

woman, though dressed in silk and jewels, you are but a woman, and, in life’s

great straits and mighty griefs, ye feel but one sorrow! (78)

When considering animal rights, an emotional link is harder to achieve due to the species gap, which results in far fewer similarities than between humans of different races and gender. Still, we all share the common capacity to feel both pleasure and pain, and it is the cry of a baby calf as he is dragged away from his mother, or the squeal of a hog as he is placed in a scalding tank while still conscious, that validates this connection (Eisnitz

71).

12

Without careful observation, individuals within Western society appear to show a great deal of concern for the interests of all living creatures. Whenever there is news of some inhumane act against an animal, the public responds with vehement opposition.

There is plenty of commentary, and the community actively discusses what should be done in response to such horrendous behavior. Unfortunately, this public commentary is where the problem lies because the vocal resistance is without constructive action. In this way, there is no true expression of emotion or empathy, only a bleak attempt at one in order to pacify a guilty conscience without making a true effort to change. When

Americans witness a report through the media that describes how every day, in the world’s largest egg-laying breed hatchery, 150,000 male chicks are thrown into a grinder while still alive, they act disgusted. However, in spite of their outward objections, those same concerned citizens continue to eat their morning eggs without giving a second thought to the obvious relationship between their daily endeavors and the violent consequences that show up on the morning news (“Hatchery Horrors”).

I am oftentimes reminded of a particular scene from A Sentimental Journey

Through France and Italy, by Laurence Sterne, which perfectly portrays the fickle nature of humans when observing the suffering of animals. The narrator, Mr. Yorick, encounters a starling who is crying to be released from his cage: “I stood looking at the bird: and to every person who came through the passage it ran fluttering to the side towards which they approach’d it, with the same lamentation of its captivity” (25). Mr.

Yorick is determined to free the poor bird from his cage, claiming that he never had his

“affections more tenderly awakened” (26). However, his concern is quick to die as he 13

later sells both the bird “and his cage . . . for a bottle of brandy” (36). Similarly,

Americans are only interested in a sensationalist news story so long as the story remains relevant. In the end, the plight of the starling is forgotten, and it is always before someone is able to successfully release him from his cage.

In addition to humans who display temporary empathy, there are also those who make their compassion for animal interests a distant, unrealistic goal. Despite their claims to the contrary, many individuals would never change their habits with regards to the well-being of others unless there was the risk of some punishment, such as earthly penalties or eternal damnation. Stowe presents this harsh truth in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, when Haley discusses his intention to one day cleanse his soul from the sin of slavery:

I’ll say this now, I al’ays meant to drive my trade so as to make money on ’t fust

and foremost, as much as any man; but, then trade an’t everything and money an’t

everything, ’cause we ’s all got souls . . . and one of these days, when I’ve got

matters tight and snug, I calculates to tend to my soul and them ar matters; and so

what’s the use of doin’ any more wickedness than ’s re’lly necessary? (102)

In the same way that Haley intends to someday end his involvement in the trading and selling of slaves, so too do many Americans intend to someday cease their support of the institutions around the world that exploit and abuse both animals and humans. Of course, such statements are usually made during dinner at Outback Steakhouse, while wearing

Nike shoes and holding on to an Apple iPhone (“Apple’s ‘Nike Moment’”). Despite the fact that meat and leather products require the destruction of animals, and that sweatshops are used to make Nike and Apple merchandise, most Americans will never abandon their 14

comfortable lifestyle (Butler).

True emotion, or empathy, in matters of animal suffering is needed now more than ever, yet it appears to be quickly diminishing in place of egocentric reasoning that does not require actual responsibility. I provided an account of my early childhood in order to show the importance of emotion in making responsible and unselfish decisions that consider the needs and desires of others. While I hope that more individuals will experience the same enlightenment as I did regarding society’s contradictory views of different animals, I feel that there will always be those who refuse to respect the lives of nonhumans. Likewise, certain individuals will continue to define the value of a human being according to their race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age and disability. For that reason, as it will be discussed in Chapter 4, the law plays a vital role in protecting basic rights when empathetic consideration is absent.

Personal Bias

I am extremely thankful for the opportunity to produce a work that encompasses a topic that I feel so passionately about. Hopefully, I will be successful in compelling some of my readers to consider taking the necessary steps in helping to end animal oppression in America and throughout the world. After working in the food industry for over fifteen years, my father has witnessed humans at their worst. Both the producer and the consumer consciously disregard the welfare of this planet, and its inhabitants, in favor of greed and convenience. Despite America’s poor reputation for equal consideration, where we have repeatedly neglected the interests of other living beings, I remain confident that there exists at least one concept upon which all members of our society can 15

agree: the desire for future generations to live in a world where cruelty is absent, disease is rare and the environment is protected.

Thus far, I have been describing the beliefs which have aided me in making many important moral decisions throughout my life. While I am certain that most of my opinions regarding politics, religion and other social issues will dramatically change over time, I have no doubt that my attitude toward animal rights will forever remain unchanged. Accordingly, I have provided this brief glimpse of my viewpoints for the purpose of confessing a very strong bias. I do not wish to write an entire thesis that describes my own personal convictions; instead, I would like to create a substantial work that presents an accurate overview of the problems associated with animal exploitation and the appropriate solutions that would be most consistent with the fundamental legal principles that are currently upheld by the U.S. Constitution. With this in mind, I will make every attempt to exclude my personal feelings from the next three chapters, and to only offer arguments that can be strongly supported through valid evidence. Although I am normally inclined to argue my position by evoking sentiment through the use of gruesome details and disturbing images, I will limit my presentation to logical facts that will ultimately lead to legitimate conclusions. In the same way, I request that you, the reader, be so kind as to temporarily leave behind your strongest personal biases for the remainder of this thesis.

Specifically, I ask that my readers remain open-minded to the idea of comparing animal abuse with other forms of oppression. Controversy often exists when animal mistreatment is compared to the atrocities that African Americans experienced during the 16

slave trade or that Jewish victims underwent during the Holocaust. The common response is that animal suffering should never be considered as important of an issue as human suffering. Unfortunately, it is the irrational fear of being compared to an animal which allows for discrimination and oppression to continue. If the status of animal were to lose its degraded meaning, then the fundamental hierarchical system of life, which most forms of oppression and exploitation rely upon, would cease to exist.

What This Thesis Will Not Cover

Regrettably, there is not enough space in this composition to examine every aspect of the animal rights movement. Although I would find great enjoyment in explaining the various, beneficial reasons for adopting a vegan or vegetarian diet, there are already a multitude of excellent resources that succeed in effectively presenting those persuasive arguments. I have imposed certain limitations on my thesis in order to focus on the more basic elements behind the movement, as well as examine the legal implications of equal consideration. With that purpose in mind, I have deliberately excluded specific issues from my discussion.

First and foremost, this thesis will be limited to Western society, specifically to the United States of America. This limitation is necessary because citizens of the U.S. are in a unique situation, one that may not be available to individuals in other parts of the world. In Western society, due to technological advancements, humans can now choose what kind of impact their lives will have on the environment. Without the proper foods, a vegan diet could result in nutritional deficiencies, but, in the U.S., Americans have the benefit of knowing about the human body and the nourishment needed for optimum 17

health. In other words, it is now possible to live an even healthier lifestyle without eating dairy and meat, an idea that was once considered impossible.

Knowledge, however, is meaningless without resources, which is why this approach is best supported when applied to Western society. Areas outside of the United

States may or may not still depend on animal products and by-products for survival, but, within this country, it is a fact that animal use is no longer needed for subsistence. In fact, animal use has now become a luxury that many consider to be a personal right, in spite of the harm that it does to animals, the human body and the environment.

Knowledge and resources serve as the foundation for this thesis because they force individuals within the U.S. to take responsibility for their actions. With an assumption of responsibility already established, this thesis will attempt to prove what commitments are mandatory under such obligations.

Second, this thesis will not discuss the details of animal abuse and exploitation.

Nearly every book that deals with the topic of animal rights devotes at least one chapter toward describing the mistreatment of livestock, wildlife, exotic pets and companion animals throughout the world. It is not necessary to rehash information that has already been established by superior authors; instead, it is time to accept the realities of an industry that relies upon the suffering and destruction of animals in order to provide food, clothing, medicine and entertainment in the most profitable manner possible. If the cruelties behind animal use have remained hidden from the reader, despite the fact that it has been well documented and publicized in recent years, a better understanding may be obtained by researching introductory materials that accurately depict the conditions in 18

, feedlots, laboratories, zoos, circuses, puppy mills and other institutions that benefit from animal exploitation.

In addition, investigations conducted by independent, non-profit organizations, such as , offer useful insight into how livestock animals are actually handled from birth to slaughter. There are also many animal sanctuaries that provide detailed accounts of the common injuries that most animals suffer from during their short lifespan in the food, clothing, medical and entertainment industry. Farm Sanctuary, located in Watkins Glen, New York, is an excellent example of an animal sanctuary that rescues abused farm animals while also providing the public with compelling evidence of the cruelty involved in modern farming practices. Overall, groups such as Mercy for

Animals and PETA have done an excellent job in creating what Sir Paul McCartney would call “glass walls” around slaughterhouses; therefore, I will not reiterate facts that the American public should already possess knowledge of.

Many opponents who argue against the animal rights movement prefer to remain in the dark when it comes to the current conditions under which most animals must live.

Instead of confronting the truth, consumers seek comfort by purchasing products that say

“cage free” or “grass fed” (“Behind the Myth”). These misleading statements create the illusion of humane treatment without the inconvenience of actually improving through legal rights. Whether our actions are through willful ignorance or innocent obliviousness, our liability does not change. The operator of a motor vehicle will be held accountable if he or she is caught driving at an excessive speed, regardless of whether such violations are the result of unawareness, carelessness, or a willful disregard 19

for the law. In the same way as Americans are expected to know the law, I expect consumers to have knowledge of where their products come from and how those products are made.

Third, my thesis will not focus on the environmental benefits of a vegan or vegetarian diet. Like the details surrounding animal abuse, the environmental impact of factory farming can no longer be denied. There are many ecological statistics that support the abolishment of animal use, but the most convincing argument comes from a report that was provided by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) resource panel in June 2010. According to the International Panel of Sustainable

Resource Management, a vegan diet is essential in the effort to prevent fuel poverty, detrimental climate change and a devastating hunger crisis:

As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050,

western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable . . .

Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population

growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is

difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of

impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away

from animal products. (Carus)

Oftentimes, conservationists are accused of making environmental issues appear worse than they actually are, but few can disregard the convincing concerns that have been expressed by the UN in their comprehensive report. The legitimacy of global warming has not yet been established, but there is no argument that we live on a planet with finite 20

resources and a predetermined amount of space. Although many Americans consider a vegan diet to be too extreme, nature’s limited reserves may someday prevent the majority of consumers from having the ability to choose a diet based on preferences.

Fourth, this thesis will not give in-depth consideration to the health benefits of a vegan diet. In January of 2012, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention released the leading causes of death in the United States and, according to the study, “Heart disease and cancer remain the top two causes of death, accounting for almost half of the country’s more than 2.4 million deaths in 2010” (Ralph). While the overall deaths related to heart disease and cancer have decreased since 2009, the numbers are still inflated when one contemplates the continual advancements that have been made in medicine, as well as the amount of money that is spent each year on health care in the United States. The standard procedure has been to remedy the symptoms with medication, but this practice provides no cure for the underlying causes of the warning signs. There remains a great deal of disparity over how this nation’s health problems should be handled, but could the solution be as simple as a basic diet change?

In the documentary , the benefits of a plant-based diet, as revealed through , are examined in great detail. According to the China

Study, which surveyed the rate of specific diseases and illnesses throughout the varying communities in China during the 1970s and 1980s, “people who ate the most animal- based foods got the most chronic disease . . . People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease” (Campbell 6). These findings were consistent with previous research in the laboratory, which showed that “[l]ow- 21

protein diets inhibited the initiation of cancer by aflatoxin . . . After cancer initiation was completed, low-protein diets also dramatically blocked subsequent cancer growth” (5).

While safe proteins, such as wheat and soy, did not promote cancer, casein, “which makes up 87% of cow’s milk protein, promoted all stages of the cancer process” (6).

Before determining the precise impact of a Western lifestyle on human health, there are still numerous questions that need answers. However, based on current scientific data, there is no doubt that an improper diet is the leading contributor to heart disease, cancer and many other serious illnesses.

Both the environment and the human body are fragile systems that we depend upon for survival; therefore, it is only common sense to give them our utmost respect and care. However, conserving our natural resources and looking out for our own well-being must not overshadow the most vital reason for adopting a vegan or vegetarian diet: upholding the natural right of all sentient beings not to be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering. Too often are the interests of animals overlooked in favor of the more serious issues, particularly the problems that directly affect human beings. My thesis will attempt to validate animal rights for the benefit of the animal alone, and any other advantageous result that is gained in the process, whether it involves human rights or environmental preservation, is a purely additional bonus.

What This Thesis Will Cover

In the following chapters, my goal is to construct a well-defined and persuasive argument that exemplifies the need for animal rights in the United States of America. In

Chapter 2, I will analyze animal representation within Western culture and the negative 22

effect that it continues to have on actual animals due to the public’s distorted perception of other species. In Chapter 3, after establishing how Americans view animals, I will contrast this perceived identity with widely accepted scientific data regarding animal sentience and intelligence. Has our increased knowledge of other species resulted in a modern society where animals are treated better than in the past? Finally, in Chapter 4, I will introduce the different theories involving animal rights and animal welfare in order to redefine the objectives of the movement. Should animals receive equal consideration, or are there valid, discriminating factors that allow mankind to prefer humans over nonhumans and to maintain an unnecessary system that uses animals for food, clothing and entertainment? In addition, I will describe the drastic changes that must first take place within the law before true equality can be achieved. In particular, it is essential that the status of personhood be extended to include all sentient beings. The ability to feel pain should be the only condition necessary in order to receive basic moral status and equal consideration within Western society. Currently, the law regards animals as nothing more than pieces of property that can be owned, traded, sold, used and destroyed.

At the end of this thesis, I hope my readers will understand that the value of a life cannot be determined or disregarded simply on the basis of empty distinctions. Rather, the ability to feel pain should be the only condition that is required in order to receive basic rights under the law. More importantly, however, I hope that my readers will be compelled to take immediate action. If only all the problems of the world could be as simple as changing one’s lifestyle to exclude animal products and by-products, perhaps 23

there would be no more world hunger, poverty, disease, intolerance or pollution. Then again, maybe nothing would change. CHAPTER II

ANIMAL REPRESENTATION: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE NONHUMAN

“As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no

liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together.” -

Isaac Bashevis Singer (“Vegan”)

Every Thanksgiving, the President of the United States receives a turkey from the

National Turkey Federation and the Poultry and Egg National Board. The tradition began in 1947 and, for the majority of presidential terms, those turkeys endured a fate similar to the one that 270 million turkeys must now face each year in the United States

(“Chickens and Turkeys”). John F. Kennedy was the earliest president on record to keep his bird as a pet, but it “wasn't until the first Thanksgiving of President George H.W.

Bush, in 1989, that a turkey was officially pardoned” (Brunner and Hughes). Since 1989, two turkeys have been pardoned each year (Soniak).

During the 2009 Presidential Thanksgiving Turkey Pardoning Ceremony,

President Barack Obama expressed his disdain toward the popular tradition by commenting, “There are certain days that remind me of why I ran for this office – and then, there are moments like this – where I pardon a turkey and send it to Disneyland”

(Freeman). While his comments may seem harsh to those who enjoy witnessing two animals avoid the dinner plate, perhaps President Obama understands the hypocrisy that underlies the entire event. Each year, the country’s highest ranking government official takes a moment to publicly grant reprieve for two turkeys, but, afterwards, he devours a

24 25

less fortunate bird in the privacy of his own home. Is turkey pardoning really intended for the animal, or is it a meager attempt at pacifying the conscience on a day where gluttony is celebrated at the expense of another living being?

Besides the absurdity of publicly saving two turkeys from slaughter on a day where millions are eaten, the very act of pardoning reveals the vital role that animal representation plays in Western society. By definition, pardon means “to absolve from the consequences of a fault or crime” (“pardon”). What serious offence or mistake did the turkey commit that requires man’s forgiveness? In addition, does the bird’s misconduct equate to a morally reprehensible act deserving of capital punishment?

Unfortunately, in America and throughout the world, being born an animal is a heinous and atrocious crime, manifesting enough depravity to qualify for the death penalty.

Moral Schizophrenia

In a culture where different species hold diverse and fluctuating degrees of value, there is no fixed standard for how animals should or should not be treated. Gary L.

Francione, a Distinguished Professor of Law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, uses the term “moral schizophrenia” to describe the conflicting ways in which humans interact with animals in modern society. From one perspective, Americans appear to act with compassion and equal consideration when directly handling certain species. Most individuals, for example, treat their companion animals like members of the family. Pet owners spend a great deal of money on food and medical care in order to satisfy the needs of their pets. Furthermore, those same owners also buy toys and treats for the purpose of making their domesticated friends content. The extravagant living conditions 26

that Paris Hilton provides for her Chihuahuas may seem outlandish to the average

American, but her actions depict the common bond that many humans develop with their companion animals. When asked about her excessive spending habits for her pets, Hilton responded by saying, “I may have spoiled them a little too much. But how can I not?

Just look at those sweet lil’ faces, they deserve to be treated like my lil’ prince and princesses” (Toglia). In the same way that Hilton is willing to share her fortune with her , so too are ordinary pet owners willing to share their lives in order to adequately care for these important creatures. However, is the elevated, intrinsic value that has been assigned to dogs and an accurate portrayal of man’s overall interaction with other species?

According to Francione, in Introduction to Animal Rights, most people would

“agree that it is morally wrong to impose unnecessary suffering on animals,” yet

Americans are some of the worst offenders when it comes to unnecessary abuse and exploitation (1). An unprecedented number of animals are now needed to meet the demands of the nation. Farmers systematically reproduce and raise livestock for their flesh or by-products; yet, in the United States, eating meat or dairy is not necessary for survival. Likewise, clothes, hygiene products and medical experiments rely heavily on animal use, even though there are alternative methods for staying warm, clean and healthy. Finally, a majority of Western entertainment involves exploiting and killing animals, despite the fact that there is no real need for hunting, , circuses, zoos, rodeos, horse racing, dog racing, marine-mammal attractions and animal actors. Whether it is for food, fashion, health, or entertainment, “the overwhelming portion of our animal 27

use can be justified only by habit, convention, amusement, convenience, or pleasure”

(xxiv). If American citizens truly believe it is wrong to cause other species unnecessary pain, then what explanation can validate the many exceptions that are currently in place?

“Moral schizophrenia” does not simply mean that we prefer cute, fluffy animals over big, smelly ones; rather, Americans concern themselves with animal welfare only when it is accommodating to a comfortable lifestyle. When an animal’s well-being interferes with human interests, even with something as trivial as eating a hamburger or watching a sporting event, that animal’s situation suddenly becomes less important. On

April 25, 2007, police discovered a dogfighting operation in Surry County, Virginia.

Michael Vick, a professional football player in the NFL, owned the property as a registered dog breeder. After conducting a federal investigation, authorities determined that “Vick and his associates . . . housed and trained over 50 dogs, staged dog fights, killed dogs, and ran a high stakes gambling ring with purses up to $26,000”

(“Animal Fighting”).

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson sentenced Vick to twenty-three months in prison, but, after only eighteen months, he was released and permitted to finish his remaining sentence under house arrest. On July 27, 2009, a little more than two years after the police raided his dogfighting compound, Vick was reinstated back into the NFL by Commissioner Roger Goodell (“Animal Fighting”). He now plays for the

Philadelphia Eagles, and, on August 29, 2011, he signed a six-year contract worth a potential $100 million. With at least $40 million guaranteed, this new deal “again makes the Pro Bowl quarterback one of the highest-paid players in the NFL” (“Eagles”). 28

Although the majority of sports fans view Vick’s journey as one of redemption, his return to prosperity is actually a reflection of mankind’s true disregard for all animal life. Dogs are often referred to as “man’s best friend,” and, when Vick’s actions were first uncovered by authorities, this status was firmly upheld. In the beginning, he was condemned by the public and he faced serious criminal penalties. Regrettably, “moral schizophrenia” was quick to set in as Vick only spent two years away from the league.

After declaring bankruptcy, establishing several charitable organizations and making numerous impressive plays on the football field, many Americans are now arguing for his forgiveness.

Rick Reilly, a sports columnist with ESPN, belongs to the growing majority of individuals who believe that Vick has properly paid his debt to society: “I love dogs, too, but how long does Vick have to star in ‘The Unforgiven’? He has faced it. Admitted it.

Apologized deeply for it. Went to federal prison for it. Got cut for it. Suspended for it.

And now campaigns against it. How long must he carry this cross?” Reilly claims that

“scars heal,” but of the forty-nine dogs seized from Vick’s property, their physical and emotional wounds will certainly take much longer to mend than the public’s shallow sensitivity to animal cruelty (“Animal Fighting”). Vick may truly feel remorse for his crimes, but, when considering the victims in this case, does mankind really have the right to determine when his actions should be forgiven and, virtually, forgotten without any long-term penalties?

In the end, Vick is responsible for torturing and killing dogs, but, as we all know, a dog is just a dog. The outcome surely would have been different if he had murdered 29

eleven women, like Anthony Sowell (Scott). Vick has been called “the best thing to happen to pit bulls,” but Sowell, even if he spends his remaining years working to help the victims of rape, will never be associated with improving the living conditions of women (Reilly). Likewise, T.J Lane, the Chardon High School shooter who killed three students and critically injured two others on February 27, 2012, will never be commended for bettering school security (Whitmire). Western society definitely suffers from a sort of “moral schizophrenia” that threatens the safety of all nonhuman animals, including the ones normally regarded as important companions. Ultimately, it is the fictional representation of the animal in American culture which allows for, and even encourages, human domination over all other species.

The Power of Language

Language is an essential element for human life because it provides access to information. Words, symbols and images are the instruments by which humans understand the world, regardless of whether the meaning is accurate or not. Children learn their native tongue at such a young age and, through the process of cultural immersion, they accept the social implications of language without hesitation. Simply put, “the distinctions we make are not necessarily given by the world around us, but are instead produced by the symbolizing systems we learn” (Belsey 7). For example, when studying politics in school, children learn words like democracy and dictatorship.

However, beyond memorizing the basic definitions for such terms, a developing individual will “also absorb as they do so the value their culture invests in these respective forms of government” (3). A child in the United States will learn to associate 30

democracy with concepts of freedom and justice, while dictatorship will be characterized by destructive and oppressive traits. In other parts of the world, specifically in countries with totalitarian governments, words like dictatorship and democracy carry completely different meanings.

From the example that was provided above, it may not appear dangerous to associate a dictatorship with oppression. Certainly, many dictatorships in the past have produced cruel and domineering tyrants. In fact, the very nature of an authoritarian regime allows for aggressive leaders to retain their power without the consent of the public. Although language may transmit accurate knowledge, there are many instances where language causes society to “reaffirm the knowledges our culture takes for granted, and the values that precede us – the norms, that is, of the previous generation” (Belsey 4).

In this way, a vicious cycle exists within Western culture because predetermined meanings become the source of ideas for new generations, allowing archaic and prejudicial perspectives to survive. For the purpose of this chapter, the primary focus will be on anthropomorphism and how animal representation has contributed toward the exploitation of both the nonhuman and human.

Anthropomorphism: The Good

An accurate view of a society’s relationship with its natural environment can be achieved by examining the various ways in which animals are represented, specifically through historical, literary, scientific and religious texts. Does the cultural language elevate or demoralize the image of the animal? Anthropomorphism is defined as “an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal 31

characteristics” (“anthropomorphism”). In other words, anthropomorphism occurs whenever human qualities are assigned to animals. Folk stories, for example, oftentimes consist of animals who can express their thoughts through man-made languages. By itself, this type of representation is harmless, and, in some societies, it may even create a stronger connection between humans and their natural world.

American Indian culture, for instance, contains many cases of positive animal imagery. The reverence shown toward animals by Native Americans gives insight into their overall ecological perspective, one that views all elements of the natural world as being interrelated. In White Wolf Woman, a collection of Native American myths retold by Teresa Pijoan, animals are represented with a great deal of importance. According to

Richard and Judy Dockrey Young, authors of the introduction to White Wolf Woman,

“The common spirit shared by human beings and animals in the Native American cosmos makes them equal partners in the natural world” (Pijoan 13). For example, the Pueblo social groups believed that bears were once “humans who decided to separate from the killers of animals and start their own group . . . The Bear People came out of the forests and offered themselves as food, having the magic to turn their bodies back into bears if hunters left the skin and bones behind untouched” (79). This belief in bodily transformation emphasizes the importance of treating animals with respect at all times, especially when hunting. By disregarding the sanctity of life, the Pueblo Indians feared that the animal’s soul would be unable to return, thus killing a possible ancestor. In addition, without the animal’s rebirth, a necessary resource would disappear, causing widespread food shortages. 32

In the story of the “Rattlesnake Father,” a young maiden falls in love with a mysterious man. The mysterious man eventually reveals himself to be a large, male snake, and the two lovers have many snake children together. After visiting her human parents one last time, the maiden disappears forever, leaving her tribe to believe that “she turned into a snake and lives with her family under the large rock” (Pijoan 35). By perceiving humans as animals and animals as humans, all life must be respected with equal importance because of the interconnected aspects of family and nature. It is much more difficult to disregard the life of an animal when there is the possibility of that creature being your mother, father, sister, brother, child, or spouse. Therefore, American

Indian mythology makes little distinction between the human/animal species boundary because “man is at one with creation, not above and not below” (Hoffman).

Animals also play a significant role in many Native American creation stories.

Unlike Christianity, where God alone devised everything in the Universe, most American

Indian faiths credit animals for assisting in the final formation of the Earth:

Ut’set then asked the all-being creator Sus’sistinnako, who told her to send out the

wolf, the bear, the badger, and the shrew to use their medicines together to harden

the earth. Ut’set did this. The four of them were unable to harden the earth.

Finally, a woman was sent from the Spider Society, and with the help of these

four animals, she was able to make the earth hard enough for the people to stand,

walk, and live upon. (Pijoan 51-52)

Similarly, several Native American cultures share an account “called the earth-diver story

. . . in which a flood covers the earth until an animal dives into the waters and retrieves 33

enough mud and soil to begin the creation of a new earth” (“Tale” 37). The involvement of nonhumans in the construction of the Earth is one reason for their sacred status in

American Indian society. In addition, every animal also serves a functional purpose. For example, snakes “can bring rain when there is a drought, can bring flash floods of death and destruction, can emit power on another, and can remove the spirit from the dead and take it to the Other Place” (Pijoan 19). Due to the nonhuman’s special status, hunting requires many rituals and rules. In his study of Native American spirituality, Nathan

Sherrer says “A key theme in Native American religion is the understanding of hunting as a reciprocal relationship between the hunter and the hunted” (17). If the rules are violated through disrespect, then the hunter will be unsuccessful in his hunt and he will face other repercussions from the sacred spirits.

Despite their religious views regarding nature, it is important to note that not all

Native American tribes were ecologically responsible:

The relationship between the Natives and their environment cannot be overstated.

There were many instances of their misuse of the land, overhunting game and

overpopulating of their own tribes . . . However, the Natives did, in fact, pay more

attention to their environment much more than any other known culture of the

time because nature, to them, stood for a representation of the sacred. (Sherrer

16)

Although there were Native Americans who abused the natural resources of their environment, those individuals were limited in the amount of destruction that they could achieve. The American Indian civilization was made up of many different tribes, and 34

each tribe followed specific traditions according to their own unique religious beliefs.

Generally speaking, Native Americans maintained a symbiotic relationship with animals by only killing what was essential for survival. In contrast, practically all animal use today, particularly in Western society, is unnecessary. The American Indian ecological perspective utilizes anthropomorphism and animal representation to establish equality and preserve harmony between humans and the environment. In the United States, animal representation is what continues to uphold the species boundary. The image of the nonhuman is now used to ease the human conscience, reaffirm the importance of humankind and degrade the value of the animal.

Anthropomorphism: The Bad

The application of anthropomorphism in Western society is widespread.

Beginning at birth, Americans are constantly immersed within a culture where animals talk like humans, act like humans and have the same interests as humans. In fact, the presence of anthropomorphism in the media is so common that its effect often goes unnoticed. By giving animals human characteristics, the nonhuman can directly communicate with the consumer, thereby alleviating any concerns the public may have over animal suffering or mistreatment. The popularity of a product may be improved through celebrity endorsements, but nothing is more convincing than having the approval of the animal from which the product is made. The guilt that accompanies the purchase of an or by-product quickly disappears after hearing direct testimony assuring the customer of the animal’s willingness to be used for the benefit of humans.

35

Charlie the Tuna, as shown in figure 2, is a classic example of anthropomorphism in American advertisement. In 1961, Depatie Freleng Studios developed the character for

StarKist Tuna, along with the famous slogan “Sorry Charlie, StarKist doesn’t want tuna with good taste, but tuna that tastes good!” (“Welcome”). In the company’s television commercials, Charlie tries repeatedly to be caught by fishermen; however, in spite of his cultured and sophisticated nature, StarKist rejects Charlie because he does not meet their standards for excellent taste. By giving human characteristics to a fish, StarKist can display firsthand the sense of pride that tuna feel when caught and processed by their company. Indeed, according to the advertisement, becoming StarKist Tuna is such an honor that fish are practically chasing after the bait.

Fig. 2. Charlie the Tuna (Schandler)

Buzz Bee, the Honey Nut Cheerios mascot, is another popular example of anthropomorphism (see fig. 3). Honeybees would not normally be associated with charitable conduct, but, in the case of Buzz, he willingly gives up his own food source in 36

order to make Cheerios taste better. Ironically, on the Cheerios website, there are several kids games titled Honey Defender, where the player’s goal is to protect Hive

City’s honey from being stolen by villains like Yellow Jacket and Handsome Hector

(“Honey”). Those games suggest to children that it is wrong to take another’s possessions without permission. Buzz, on the other hand, assures his customers that their morning breakfast was made from honey obtained under fair circumstances, with the full approval and cooperation of the honeybees who produced it.

Fig. 3. Buzz, the Honey Nut Cheerios Bee (“Who Is”)

In a 2011 article about the popularity of chicken skin, The New York Times presented a seductive picture of a dead chicken using anthropomorphic methods similar to the ones employed by StarKist Tuna and Honey Nut Cheerios (see fig. 4). According to the article, “There are white-meat people and there are dark-meat people . . . And then there are skin people. They are the ones who cannot help themselves around roast or fried chicken, ripping off the crispiest bits of skin before the bird makes it to the table” 37

(DiGregorio). Of course, giving in to the temptation of chicken skin is much easier when animals are provided the ability to indicate their desire to be eaten. Like Charlie and

Buzz, this nonhuman is not only willing to offer her products to the human consumer, but, as implied through her suggestive pose, dying for our dinner would be her pleasure.

In addition, this image reveals an important connection between animal exploitation and the objectification of women, a theme that will be reintroduced later in the chapter.

Fig. 4. Seductive Chicken Skin (Cenicola)

Some advertisements will even go so far as to say that the animal feels betrayed when not eaten. To promote the Cheesy Bacon Tendercrisp, Burger King released several commercials that show a man secretly enjoying the sandwich in a secluded location (see fig. 5). After taking the first bite, an angry cow appears and the man nervously attempts to explain the situation. He has been caught cheating with another piece of meat, and now he must face a very mad cow. Besides the commercial’s sexual connotations, there is also the indication that humans have an obligation to eat animals. 38

Cows, pigs and chickens all compete for mankind’s affection and, according to Burger

King, straying from one meat to another is the same as infidelity. Therefore, in order to remain faithful, Americans are encouraged to eat all animals equally.

Fig. 5. Mad Cow Commercial (“Burger King”)

Anthropomorphism not only allows animals to convey their desire to be used by humans, but it also helps them to display their happiness and quality of life during the exploitation process. In response to frequent reports of sickening conditions and unspeakable cruelty in the meat and dairy industry, companies have attempted to relieve consumer concerns by demonstrating what wonderful lives their animals truly have.

Farmers readily admit that abuses occur within the industry, but they never include themselves when making such confessions. The image of the happy cow, as presented in figure 6, is a perfect example of how the dairy industry has confronted the issue of inhumane treatment and has provided a deceptive solution without taking any genuine responsibility for the problem. According to the California Milk Advisory Board 39

(CMAB), rather than boycotting dairy because of animal suffering, Americans should instead buy products with the Real California seal because it ensures humane handling and responsible animal care. Needless to say, their commercials, which consist of multiple cows talking and laughing, are the CMAB’s most credible and convincing pieces of evidence in support of the dairy industry’s improving welfare standards.

Fig. 6. Happy Cow Commercial (“Happy Cows”)

In addition to the profound, earthly impact that humans have on animals, a local barbeque catering company proposes that humans also play a necessary role in the afterlife of the nonhuman. Heaven Bound BBQ, in figure 7, advertises its services by showing a pig, with wings, praying before the Cross. By fulfilling their earthly duties, pigs are able to achieve eternal bliss in Heaven; however, their bodily sacrifice cannot be carried out without human assistance. Unlike traditional religious arguments against animal rights, Heaven Bound BBQ does not deny that animals have souls. Strangely enough, they confirm that pigs are conscious creatures that can attain salvation, but this 40

redemption requires faithful servitude in the form of slaughter. Thus, consumers should not feel guilty when ingesting the flesh of an animal because, in reality, our selfless actions help to save the souls of millions of pigs each year.

Fig. 7. Swine Salvation (“Heavenbound BBQ”)

Ranging from expensive television commercials, as shown in figure 6, to local restaurant ads, as shown in figures 7 and 8, anthropomorphic messages are practically everywhere, and they all express the same idea: animals are happy to be exploited, killed and processed. The turkey in figure 8 not only accepts his fate, but he even aids in keeping his flesh moist and flavorful. Such advertisements create a guilt-free atmosphere of “good fellowship,” much like the Quaker household in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, where “the chicken and ham had a cheerful and joyous fizzle in the pan, as if they rather enjoyed being cooked than otherwise” (Stowe 170). Throughout history, the fictional image of the animal has functioned in creating a false sense of harmony between the oppressor and the oppressed. By putting words in the nonhuman’s mouth, it appears as though both 41

sides are content with their place in society. When analyzed from an outside perspective, animal representation seems almost comical; but, for the men, women and children who are constantly immersed within Western culture, anthropomorphism offers a valid excuse for continuing a lifestyle centered on animal suffering.

Fig. 8. Local Restaurant Advertisement (“Turkey Terrific”)

Anthropomorphism: The Ugly

Unfortunately, there are many other factors, besides anthropomorphic advertisements, which negatively contribute toward the overall image of the nonhuman in

Western society. In fact, animals are frequently humanized in popular culture for mere entertainment purposes, particularly in literary works and television programs that target younger audiences. Many classic children’s books, such as The Cat in the Hat, The Story of Babar, The Tale of Peter Rabbit, Olivia, The Complete Tales of Winnie the Pooh, The

Berenstain Bears, Charlotte’s Web, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and The 42

Wonderful Wizard of Oz, feature animal characters with human characteristics. In addition, animals are heavily personified in both movies and television shows like Bambi,

The Lion King, The Jungle Book, A Bug’s Life, Sesame Street, Clifford the Big Red Dog and Arthur. When considering literature, film, television, comics, video games, fairy tales and folklore, there are literally thousands of instances where animals are given human qualities. What effect, if any, does this type of animal representation have on the minds of young children, especially when their entire lives have consisted of a predominantly anthropomorphic view of the natural world?

In 1983, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a survey to analyze “the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of a national sample of 3,087 fifth and sixth grade students concerning wildlife” (Westervelt and Llewellyn iii). Student attitudes were grouped into four different categories: humanistic, moralistic, naturalistic and negativistic. A humanistic approach involves a strong emotional connection with animals, and it is most likely the product of anthropomorphic influences. A moralistic outlook focuses primarily on the humane treatment of animals, while a naturalistic attitude is defined by a strong appreciation for nature and wildlife. Finally, individuals with a negativistic mindset will avoid animals out of fear or dislike (11). According to the overall results from the Wildlife Survey, “Children expressed more sentimental affection for loveable kinds of animals than naturalistic interest in wildlife, and demonstrated limited knowledge about wildlife” (iii).

This study not only revealed the prevailing opinions that most children had for animals in 1983, but, when “compared with the results obtained from the 1978 national 43

survey of adult attitudes toward wildlife and natural habitat,” an interesting correlation between attitude and age was discovered (Westervelt and Llewellyn 21). Particularly, the evidence suggests that children, ages ten through twelve, hold relatively strong humanistic, moralistic and naturalistic viewpoints when considering animals. However, as an individual reaches maturity, those three attitudes begin to decline and, after age twenty-five, negativistic feelings for animals start to emerge (26). Although the exact cause of this trend has not been determined, animal representation certainly serves an important role in the evolution of American perceptions regarding the nonhuman.

Western society is built upon modern scientific principles and traditional religious beliefs. Graham Huggan and Helen Tiffin, in Postcolonial Ecocriticism, claim that

“Science has been instrumental in giving us our current ideas of animality – ideas that classical philosophical theories and Christian doctrine have reinforced” (160). For instance, because of Darwinism, “humanity is seen as the pinnacle of evolution. Thus humans do not need to be in concert with nature.” In addition, technological advancements have allowed scientists to take their field in new directions, “becoming not a manipulator of nature, but an author of nature” (Hoffman). Genetic engineering is now a common practice in American agriculture, and it will continue to progress as scientists attempt to perfect the natural world. Thomas Hoffman, in “Moving beyond dualism,” discusses the impact of science on mankind’s relationship with nature:

The attitude of the technological era does not promote participation and

cooperation with nature . . . Technology allows humanity to create distance

between itself and nature. Technology also gives people power to redirect nature, 44

to channel its forces in new ways. With the mechanical arts humanity can imitate

nature, even subsume it. (447)

With the ever-increasing ability to change and destroy life, humans have fortified their position at the top of the food chain. Consequently, the image of the animal has also been reinforced as one of imperfection, weakness, stupidity and savagery.

Despite the growing capacity for scientists to answer life’s most intriguing questions, religion continues to be an extremely influential institution in Western society.

The United States upholds the separation of church and state, but there is no denying that religion, specifically the Judeo – Christian faith, has aided in the formation of the nation and remains deeply entrenched in American culture. Many individuals identify themselves “as a single, distinct group of animals that has been specially created and given dominion in Genesis 1:26 over all other animals” (Waldau 170). This concept of human importance is supported by passages throughout the Hebrew Bible:

They are particularly evident in the Genesis accounts of (1) the order of Creation,

the naming of the animals, the charge of dominion, and the image of God, and (2)

the Flood story by way of its emphasis on stewardship, the focus on terrestrials,

and the permission to eat other animals . . . This explicit belief that humans were

. . . not merely “unique-different” but “unique-better” is the starting point which

the Christian tradition inherited from the Hebrew Bible. (172)

Due to mankind’s assumed superiority over the rest of creation, early American settlers felt permitted to view nature and its inhabitants “as something that man could take advantage of and exploit to fit his own needs” (Sherrer 17). 45

Even today, animals and the environment are regarded as tools that God created for man’s benefit. Paragraph 2415 of the 1994 Catholic Catechism reveals the official

Catholic Church position on the status of nonhumans: “Animals, like plants and inanimate things, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present and future humanity” (qtd. in Waldau 202). Generally speaking, the basic Christian understanding of the nonhuman emphasizes its inferiority when compared to mankind:

The mainline Christian tradition has historically asserted, as part of its basic

message, not only a fundamental, radical division between human animals and all

other animals but also the exclusion of all other animals’ interests when they are

in conflict with even minor, unnecessary human interests. (Waldau 214-215)

Speciesism is defined by , in , as “a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one’s own species and against those members of other species” (qtd. in Waldau 29). Although Christianity does contain exceptions that contradict the typical understanding of the nonhuman, “the history of the tradition through its first two millennia suggests that speciesist values and orientations have been far more than a mere specter” (Waldau 217).

How does , in both science and religion, relate to anthropomorphism in

American culture, and can this relationship explain the change in attitude that was observed between children and adults in the 1983 Wildlife Survey? Science, religion and anthropomorphic works all focus on the importance of the human. Children routinely read books and watch movies featuring fictional animals with human characteristics.

Furthermore, schools, scientific organizations and religious communities confirm the 46

teachings of popular culture by emphasizing the significance of Homo sapiens. Children commonly express humanistic, moralistic and naturalistic attitudes toward animals because their notion of the nonhuman has been misguided by sources that represent animals using human traits. Children eventually mature into adults, and, with the realization that actual animals have few human attributes, they quickly develop a negativistic attitude toward the nonhuman. In this manner, speciesism continues to preserve the degraded image of the animal through contemporary science, traditional religious beliefs and creative works in both literature and film.

The Animal

Throughout history, negative animal imagery and anthropocentric ideals, which designate humans as the most important entities in the Universe, have assisted in creating a Western society consistently “constructed by or against the wild, savage and animalistic” (Huggan and Tiffin 134). However, nonhumans are not the only group to be adversely affected by the species boundary. Animal representation also facilitates human oppression and exploitation. In other words, “human individuals and cultures at various times have been and are treated ‘like animals’ by dominant groups, and both human genocide and human slavery have been, and in some cases continue to be, predicated on the categorisation of other peoples as animals” (135). As a rule, modern-day Americans consider it wrong to discriminate according to race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age and disability; yet, those same individuals fully accept the degraded status bestowed to all animals. Granting equal rights for humans may effectively treat the symptoms of racism and bigotry, but, without removing the 47

foundation upon which narrow-minded ideas originate, intolerance will forever exist in one form or another.

Inequality among human beings has long been achieved through animal association, but what is the purpose of downgrading an individual’s moral status? During the European Enlightenment, fear of the “wild man,” who lurked in the outside world and within man’s own heart, necessitated “the repression of the animal and animalistic”

(Huggan and Tiffin 134). Of course, while it may be easier to justify the atrocities of genocide, colonialism and slavery through claims of barbaric threats to civilized society, the true motivation behind oppression has always been power. By conveying a particular group as possessing animal-like qualities, those in control are able to gain and maintain dominance over others. For example, the word savage, which is defined as a fierce and violent temperament belonging “to an animal or force of nature,” has often been used to describe humans (“savage”). During European colonialism, explorers and their governments utilized terms like savage in order to differentiate themselves from indigenous populations. With an extensive vocabulary of degrading expressions on hand, colonists firmly established their own superiority by portraying the Natives as inferior life forms.

In Christopher Columbus’ letter to Luis de Santangel, secretary to the royal court of Spain, he provides an interesting description of the Natives who inhabited the “New

World:”

The people of this island and of all the other islands which I have found and of

which I have information, all go naked, men and women, as their mothers bore 48

them . . . They have no iron or steel or weapons, nor are they fitted to use them.

This is not because they are not well built and of handsome stature, because they

are very marvellously timorous. (Columbus 70)

For Columbus, colonization was an economic opportunity to extract valuable resources that included spices, cotton, mastic, gold “and slaves, as many as they shall order to be shipped” (73). Columbus referred to the Natives in “Avan” as “people . . . born with tails,” and, overall, he “saw no great diversity in the appearance of the people or in their manners and language” (71). In this way, by using animal features to depict the Native

Americans as savages “who eat human flesh,” men were able to rationalize the enslavement and systematic annihilation of an entire civilization (72).

Columbus was not alone in his lowly portrayal of the tribes from the “New

World.” In “A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies,” Bartolomé de Las Casas describes the Natives “as open and as innocent as can be imagined. The simplest people in the world – unassuming, long-suffering, unassertive, and submissive” (De Las Casas

55). Although Las Casas condemned the atrocities committed against the indigenous populations, he never once called into question Spain’s right to claim ownership over the

Americas. Unlike Columbus, Las Casas did not view the Natives as resources to be used for economic gain; rather, he believed that they were in need of Christianity in order to bring redemption and civility to their otherwise barbaric lifestyle: “These would be the most blessed people on earth if only they were given the chance to convert to

Christianity” (55). Still, for the purposes of maintaining power and generating wealth, colonies relied heavily on religious conversion and cultural immersion. Missionaries 49

were usually the first to arrive in a new colony, and their job was to persuade the locals to follow the ways of both God and government. As a result of their brainwashing techniques, colonists could exploit and oppress the Natives with little threat of resistance.

Therefore, while Las Casas urged humane treatment of Native Americans, his perception of their status as inferior human beings only contributed toward colonialism’s overall destructive effect on indigenous populations.

Imperialism had a widespread impact across the planet, and colonies were established in territories well beyond the Americas (see fig. 9). In Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, King Leopold’s imperial expansion into Africa is examined through the eyes of Charles Marlow as he attempts to retrieve Kurtz, the unstable chief of the Inner

Station, for a Belgian trading company. To the unsuspecting reader, “Heart of Darkness is about the primitive instincts always lurking in the human heart, and the danger of atavistic reversion. Alone (i.e. without fellow whites), Kurtz has reverted to the condition of a brute” (Huggan and Tiffin 142). The Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe has criticized Conrad’s novel for disregarding Africans “as independent entities, becoming – as many animals do in fiction – representative of some earlier moment in evolutionary history or some primordial human trait” (143). Within Heart of Darkness, Africans are depicted as savages and cannibals; therefore, does Achebe have a valid objection?

Instead of labeling Conrad’s book as blatantly racist, perhaps his work is a critical reflection of the mentality involved in colonialism. 50

Fig. 9. Colonialism in Africa (“Unit Two”)

For King Leopold II, his “interest in the Congo was purely one of asset stripping”

(Huggan and Tiffin 141). Despite the fact that ivory is the primary resource traded in

Heart of Darkness, “those from whom the ivory has been extracted – by slaughter – are conspicuous by their absence from the text” (144). In a similar fashion, “Africans are rendered absent in Conrad’s novel . . . to which their role can only be as surrogates for a

European malaise” (143). From Marlow’s perspective, the nearly invisible Africans seem almost nonhuman:

They [the slaves] were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing

earthly now, - nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying

confusedly in the greenish gloom. Brought from all the recesses of the coast in all 51

the legality of time contracts, lost in uncongenial surroundings, fed on unfamiliar

food, they sickened, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and

rest . . . I began to distinguish the gleam of eyes under the trees . . . The black

bones reclined at full length with one shoulder against the tree, and slowly the

eyelids rose and the sunken eyes looked up at me, enormous and vacant, a kind of

blind, white flicker in the depths of the orbs, which died out slowly. (Conrad 17)

Africans and elephants are central to Conrad’s story, but only as “inanimate trade goods”

(Huggan and Tiffin 147). In other words, Africans became synonymous with slaves in the same way that elephants became synonymous with ivory because, in both cases, animalistic qualities were “deployed, not just to signify an animal, but also to impute the human, albeit in a primitive form” (148). Since animals are viewed as nothing more than personal property, a clear connection exists between speciesism and the objectification of humans.

Throughout history, societies have taken the power of negative animal imagery to the extreme by using it to validate the ownership of human beings. In Uncle Tom’s

Cabin, St. Clare describes how religion, politics, science and language all conveniently support a corrupt institution:

Planters, who have money to make by it, - clergymen, who have planters to

please, - politicians, who want to rule by it, - may warp and bend language and

ethics to a degree that shall astonish the world at their ingenuity; they can press

nature and the Bible, and nobody knows what else into the service; but, after all,

neither they nor the world believe in it one particle the more. (Stowe 247) 52

Pro-slavery groups interpreted the Bible as saying that “the orders and distinctions in society came from God; and that it was so appropriate . . . that some should be high and some low, and that some were born to rule and some to serve” (210). In addition, scientists, like Edward Long, justified racism by outlining “a racial hierarchy where blacks were situated between Europeans and orangutans” (“RACE”). Types of Mankind, an illustrated volume by Josiah Nott and George Gliddon, examines different races and their biological connection with animals. Published in 1854, this text dispersed racist ideas through scientific data (see table 1). By creating a relationship between a particular human race and animals, it became acceptable to own, sell and treat members of that race like animals.

Table 1. Morton Race Table (Agassiz)

In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the degrading nature of slavery is clearly evident. Harriet

Beecher Stowe’s characters use words like creature, critter, dog, beast and heathen when referring to slaves: “I’d buy the dog, and work him, with a clear conscience!” (Stowe 53

253). Similarly, the text portrays the selling and purchasing of slaves much like a transaction involving furniture. When considering his daughter’s request to buy Tom, St.

Clare asks, “What for, pussy? Are you going to use him for a rattle-box, or a rocking- horse, or what?” (179). Owning a human being, from the slaveholder’s point of view, is no different than owning a horse or cow. In fact, the negotiation process between Mr.

Haley and a potential customer sounds identical to a cattle auction:

Wal, now, just think on ’t . . . just look at them limbs, - broad-chested, strong as a

horse. Look at his head; them high forrads allays shows calculatin niggers, that’ll

do any kind o’ thing. I’ve marked that ar. Now, a nigger of that ar heft and build

is worth considerable, just as you may say, for his body, supposing he’s stupid;

but come to put in his calculatin faculties, and them which I can show he has on

common, why, of course, it makes him come higher. Why, that ar fellow

managed his master’s whole farm. He has a strornary talent for business. (178)

The link between animal representation and human oppression is especially significant when considering American slavery. The United States Declaration of Independence proclaims “that all men are created equal,” but, if certain individuals were believed to be more animal than human, then they could be denied the rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The traditional forms of genocide, colonialism and slavery have long since disappeared from American society. Over the years, human rights have steadily progressed to incorporate all Homo sapiens, but the status of the animal has not changed.

Nonhumans are still regarded as personal property intended for mankind’s benefit. 54

Therefore, despite the existence of ethical values and constitutional rights, intolerance continues to thrive because the degraded image of the animal remains intact. Although the law may protect humans against physical oppression, the legal system cannot control the biases of its citizens. Rather, an individual’s attitude is determined by his or her environment. In this way, language is significant because it assists humans in interpreting their surroundings:

Animal categorisations and the use of derogatory animal metaphors have been

and are characteristic of human languages, often in association with racism and

sexism: ‘you stupid cow’; politicians with their ‘snouts in the trough’; ‘male

chauvinist pig’ . . . It is thus not surprising that human individuals and societies

reject animal similitudes and analogies and insist instead on a separate

subjectivity. (Huggan and Tiffin 135-136)

Other negative, animal metaphors include dog, chicken, jackass, weasel, monkey, snake, dumb bunny, old crow, shrew and rat, just to name a few. The swearword bitch is an offensive term used to “reflect a conception of women as mindless servants. But the . . . offending components . . . derive from speciesist attitudes and practices. Without speciesism, domesticated animals would not be regarded as mindless” and there would be no basis upon which women could be treated as inferior beings (Dunayer 15). Of course, not all animal metaphors are degrading; but, while “some expressions that compare humans to other animals are complimentary (busy as a bee, eagle-eyed, brave as a lion), the vast majority offend” (17).

55

When examined from a broad, historical perspective, it quickly becomes apparent that an interdependent relationship exists between animal imagery and human oppression.

Inaccurate representations of the nonhuman have created “a warped view of the natural world” (Adams and Donovan 6). In advertisements, animals possess human characteristics in order to ease the guilty conscience of the consumer. In reality, animals do not have human attributes; therefore, their lives are automatically considered less valuable. No matter what the situation, the nonhuman is condemned to the same fate.

Furthermore, dominant groups in Western society have used “the animalistic to destroy or marginalise other human societies” (Huggan and Tiffin 135). Both Native Americans and Africans were viewed as less-than-human, and treated like inferiors, because of this animal comparison. Being different should never equate to inferiority. Taken as a whole,

“all oppressions are interconnected: no one creature will be free until all are free – from abuse, degradation, exploitation, pollution, and commercialization . . . and until the mentality of domination is ended in all its forms, these afflictions will continue” (Adams and Donovan 3). CHAPTER III

FACT VERSUS FICTION: UNDERSTANDING THE ACTUAL ANIMAL

“There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties . . . The lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness,

and misery.” - Charles Darwin (“Best Vegetarian”)

According to Aristotle’s writings, animals and humans are superior to plants because “only animals and human beings are capable of conscious experience . . .

Likewise, human beings are superior to animals because human beings have the capacity for using reason to guide their conduct, while animals lack this ability and must instead rely on instinct” (Wilson). By establishing the difference between animals and humans,

Aristotle determined that animals exist for the sole purpose of serving human needs. In keeping with this theory regarding the nonhuman’s function in society, many of history’s most influential philosophers have aided in the construction of a general hierarchy for all living organisms. Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, for example, “were quick to combine God’s grant of dominion over animals in the Old Testament with Jesus’ apparent indifference to animals, and to conclude that animals existed only for the benefit of humans and had no moral significance whatsoever” (Francione 108). Furthermore,

Aquinas argued “that if a being cannot direct its own actions then others must do so . . .

Since animals cannot direct their own actions, they are merely instruments and exist for the sake of the human beings that direct their actions” (Wilson). Aquinas only objected to animal cruelty in cases where such behavior encouraged acts of violence against

56 57

mankind (Francione 108).

John Locke, an English philosopher in the eighteenth century, followed in

Aquinas’ footsteps when formulating his social contract theory. Locke proposed “that the origin of property rights as a general matter was the absolute right that God had supposedly given to humans to use and kill animals” (Francione 106). Although he

“recognized that animals have a complex psychology and that they possess basic reasoning ability, . . . animals are merely means to human ends” because they are not rational and, as a result, do not have immortal souls (112-113). Locke’s theory “had an enormous effect on British and American law,” and it remains “at the very core of our supposedly secular view of animals as property” (107). As discussed in Chapter 2, even though “there are at least some believers in every religion that adopt the view that animal interests are morally significant, it is the concept of animals as property, rather than the sanctity of animal life, that is explicitly and inextricably rooted in religious doctrine”

(109).

Not all philosophers, however, have relied upon their religious convictions when determining the role of the nonhuman in society. The German theorist Immanuel Kant, for instance, claimed “that animals are neither rational nor self-aware and lack moral value because they are unable to understand or apply moral rules” (Francione 113). Kant focused on “the properties that human beings have and animals lack” in order to prove man’s superiority over the nonhuman (Wilson). In this same manner, Aristotle validated the oppression of both humans and nonhumans by claiming that some life forms act only 58

by instinct, lacking “rationality” and intelligence; therefore, they “are the ‘natural slaves’ of those who” can use rational thought to form moral principles (Francione 112).

Men like Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke and Kant have all contributed toward the animal’s degraded status, but no individual has made as significant of an impact on the hierarchical relationship between humans and nonhumans as the French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes. Deemed “the founder of modern philosophy,” Descartes commonly referred to animals as automatons:

In support of the idea that animals lack consciousness, Descartes argued that they

do not use verbal or sign language, something that every human being does but

that no animal does. Descartes certainly recognized that animals act in what

appear to be purposive and intelligent ways and they seem to be conscious, but he

claimed that they are really no different from machines made by God . . . An

obvious implication of Descartes’s position . . . was that animals are not sentient;

they are not conscious of pain, pleasure, or anything else. (Francione 2)

When performing sensory experiments on animals, Descartes dismissed their reactions as nothing more than mechanical responses to external stimuli. In other words, he insisted that the writhing movements and loud cries produced by a dog who is “burned, scalded, and mutilated . . . is no different from a whining gear that needs oil” (2). Thus, in keeping with Descartes’ philosophy, there is no moral obligation owed to the nonhuman; instead, humans are only obligated to uphold the interests of other humans. Currently, the U.S. legal system reflects this viewpoint by classifying animals as strictly personal property. Therefore, apart from the penalties imposed under cruelty statutes, damaging 59

an animal will carry the same consequences as damaging an inanimate object. The law concerning animal property will be examined with greater detail in Chapter 4.

During the 17th century, “a mechanistic view of the natural world was replacing the Aristotelian conception” (Wilson). Descartes and his followers assumed that animals were “nothing more than robots, with no ability to think or feel” (Francione 2).

Descartes’ theory, refuting animal sentience, was founded on flawed observations, but his perspective at least offers a reasonable explanation for why so many individuals disregarded the well-being of nonhumans during that period in history. Why should humans respect the nonexistent interests of machines, especially when these automatons are unable to consciously feel pleasure or pain? Obviously, biologists now know that

Descartes’ logic was inaccurate, but in what ways do modern scientific discoveries affect the status of the nonhuman? Has Western society’s treatment of animals evolved to match the public’s growing awareness of animal sentience and intelligence?

Animal Intelligence: Vertebrates

For classification purposes, animals “are conveniently divided into vertebrates, which possess a backbone, and invertebrates, which lack one” (Stanley 65). The first vertebrates to appear on Earth were “fishlike animals that evolved a supple structure to support the body – the jointed vertebral column, to which the skull and skeletal supports for appendages were attached” (71). In the Paleozoic Era, approximately 444 million years ago, fishes acquired jaws, allowing them to become efficient predators (316).

Some fishes “had a skeleton composed of cartilage (a trait retained in modern sharks).

Others evolved bony external armor. Still others developed a bony internal skeleton, and 60

their descendants include most fishes of the modern world” (72). To this day, fishes maintain a powerful presence on this planet, but society treats them “as if they are little robots” (Pearson). Recently, scientists have “observed them using tools, building complex nests and exhibiting long-term memories” (“Scientists”). Dr. Culum Brown, an expert in fish behavior at Macquarie University in Sydney, says “Fish are more intelligent than they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers match or exceed those of ‘higher’ vertebrates including non-human primates” (Pearson). There is even evidence suggesting that stress can cause abnormal behavior in fish species, such as repetitive movements and irregular eating habits. Biologists Calum Brown, Keven

Laland and Jens Krause object to “the image of fish as drudging and dim-witted pea- brains, driven largely by ‘instinct’” (“Scientists”). Rather, these animals should be distinguished according to their social intelligence.

In an effort to survive periods of drought, an early group of lobe-finned fishes evolved into amphibians. These four-legged vertebrates are born in the water, but, through a process called metamorphosis, they eventually move onto land. Reptiles, evolving from amphibians and gaining the ability to produce eggs with protective shells, permanently invaded “dry habitats – habitats that had been inaccessible to amphibians because of their dependence on water for reproduction” (Stanley 72). Upon their emergence, roughly 318 million years ago, reptiles ruled their terrestrial domain (342).

Nowadays, they are considered unintelligent organisms, boasting only the most rudimentary and primitive characteristics: 61

The reptilian mind is usually equated in the human one with traits like aggression,

dominance and sexual appetite. That analysis was given currency in the 1960s

when Paul MacLean theorised that the human brain has three levels, the most

basic—both functionally and literally (because it is at the bottom of the organ)—

being the “reptilian” part, composed of structures called basal ganglia. (“Animal

Behaviour”)

In reality, reptiles demonstrate “behavioural flexibility across multiple cognitive tasks, including solving a novel motor task using multiple strategies and reversal learning, as well as rapid associative learning” (Leal and Powell). Manuel Leal and Brian Powell, biologists from Duke University, “report that lizards have some of the same creative problem-solving abilities that birds and mammals do . . . using skills ‘which have no real ecological relevance’” (Bhanoo).

During the Mesozoic Era, “birds evolved from a group of dinosaurs” (Stanley 73).

Although their evolutionary relatives perished 65.5 million years ago, birds continue to thrive (404). In recent years, biologists have attributed the signs of avian intellect to excellent instincts; yet “[t]he clash of simple brain and complex behavior has led some neuroscientists to create a new map of the avian brain” (Blakeslee). Crows on the Pacific island of New Caledonia “demonstrate a tool-making, and tool using, capability comparable to Palaeolithic man’s” (Davies). Besides constructing “hooks and spears of small sticks to carry on foraging expeditions, some have learned to put walnuts on roads for cars to crack” (Blakeslee). In addition, specific birds are able to use aspects of human speech in meaningful ways. Alex, an African Grey parrot, exemplified bird cognition 62

throughout his life by learning numbers, colors, materials, shapes and abstract concepts, including time and deception. Alex performed “as well as apes and dolphins in tests of intellectual acuity, even though the structure of the parrot brain differs considerably from that of terrestrial and aquatic mammals” (Pepperberg). Alex’s trainer, Professor

Pepperberg, believes he had “the intelligence and emotional make-up of a 3 to 4 year old child” (Davies).

Evolving from reptiles, therapsids “were ancestral to mammals” (Stanley 73).

Currently, most mammals are characterized as being endothermic and bearing live young.

Furthermore, mammals have legs situated completely beneath their bodies, allowing for better movement. However, it is their intellectual capacity which keeps them competitive with other animals. Scientists at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center found that

“[c]himpanzees and humans use the same parts of the brain when communicating, suggesting a common ancestral root to our linguistic prowess” (Keim). Primates, like

Kanzi, “can build thoughts and sentences, even conjugate, all by pointing” to different symbols and words on a glossary (Kluger). Chimpanzees, such as Washoe, have also been taught American Sign Language. Washoe successfully formed sentences with words she learned, and “some of the forms appear to have been inventions . . . which would seem to indicate that her communication system had the potential for productivity”

(Yule 17). In other words, particular primates can create “new expressions and novel utterances by manipulating their linguistic resources to describe new objects and situations” (13). Of course, monkeys are not the only mammals capable of complex interaction. Dolphins, for instance, “‘talk’ to each other using a process very similar to 63

the way that humans communicate . . . sounds are produced by tissue vibrations analogous to the operation of vocal folds by humans and many other land-based animals”

(Viegas).

When examining the behavior of mammals, the evidence of higher brain functioning is overwhelming. Lions and hyenas engage in strategic hunting, elephants and apes appropriately recognize their reflection and dogs innately grasp the concept of

“pointing” (Kluger). Researchers have found that cows “can remember things for a long time” and they “interact in socially complex ways, developing friendships over time and sometimes holding grudges against other cows who treat them badly” (“Hidden Lives”).

In a study at Pennsylvania State University, pigs learned how to play a video game:

The pigs quickly learned that they could move the cursor on a computer screen

with the joystick . . . The cursor was in the middle of the computer screen and the

pigs got a treat if they moved the cursor far enough in any direction to touch a line

that formed a square around the cursor . . . They weren’t just doing it for the food

reward, either. When the treat feeder broke, the pigs kept playing. (Grandin and

Johnson 174)

Dr. Jaak Panksepp, a neuroscientist at Washington State University, claims that all mammals express seven basic “blue-ribbon emotions,” and she spells them out using capital letters: SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR, PANIC, LUST, CARE and PLAY (6-9).

When viewing these emotions through actual case studies, it is virtually impossible to dismiss mammals as unintelligent beings. Beyond mammals, all vertebrates show signs 64

of SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR and PANIC. Sadly, while Americans may acknowledge intelligence in vertebrates, Western exploitation of these animals has not diminished.

Animal Intelligence: Invertebrates

Dr. Lars Chittka, professor of Sensory and Behavioral Ecology at Queen Mary

University in London, says “Animals with bigger brains are not necessarily more intelligent . . . In fact, the models suggest that counting could be achieved with only a few hundred nerve cells and only a few thousand could be enough to generate consciousness”

(“Bigger”). Most people may prefer to think of insects as “hardwired tiny robots, not adaptive, not intelligent, and certainly not conscious. However, research over the last few decades have shown that a number of well-studied insects are capable of performing amazing intellectual feats” (Hance). Honeybees, for example, “perform a complex dance routine to communicate to the other bees” where to find a particular source of nectar

(Yule 12). In this way, honeybees can convey messages that relate to past events and distant locations, a skill that most vertebrates do not possess. Other insects, such as paper wasps and certain ant species, identify each other according to facial features and smell.

In Chittka’s professional opinion, “The cognitive feats described above are of course clearly the result of individual learning. It might be controversial whether rule learning, categorization etc. qualify as intelligence, but of course similar tests are indeed used for

IQ tests on human subjects” (Hance).

Even though spiders are not classified as insects, these intimidating invertebrates usually receive as much, if not more, disdain from the general public. Throughout the scientific community, spiders have long been considered “too primitive to exhibit 65

interesting behavior” (Montgomery). Beneath their frightening exterior, however, spiders act in ways that do not “fit with the idea of invertebrates as automatons” (McCrone).

Tarantulas display CARE emotions by sharing food, and some “[m]other tarantulas are known to go without eating so that their offspring can eat” (Montgomery). Portia labiate, a jumping spider, lures other spiders by plucking “out rhythms at the edge of a web to mimic a trapped insect or a hostile intruder . . . While Portia’s deception skills are impressive, what is most remarkable is its ability to plot a path to its victim” (McCrone).

The Portia labiate’s cognitive capacity to learn through trial and error matches that of most mammals, in spite of the fact that this spider’s brain equals the size of a pinhead.

With new evidence of invertebrate intelligence emerging on a daily basis, perhaps humans should think twice before exterminating these pests.

Sentience

By examining animal intelligence, the purpose is not to prove significance solely through human comparisons. Instead, nonhumans deserve recognition and respect because they possess the unique capability to actively engage with their environment.

There will always be differences between species, but diversity does not equate to inferiority. Chittka acknowledges “that many animals (especially our closest relatives) can do some of the things that we consider intelligent in humans,” but, “rather than searching for amusing similarities with humans, it is more promising to launch into the unknown and strive for genuinely novel discoveries” (Hance). Nevertheless, the evolutionary connection between mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes and invertebrates must also serve as a reminder of life’s common characteristics: 66

Humans are the only animals that use tools, we used to say. But what about the

birds and apes that we now know do as well? Humans are the only ones who are

empathic and generous, then. But what about the monkeys that practice charity

and the elephants that mourn their dead? Humans are the only ones who

experience joy and a knowledge of the future. But what about the U.K. study just

last month showing that pigs raised in comfortable environments exhibit

optimism, moving expectantly toward a new sound instead of retreating warily

from it? And as for humans as the only beasts with language? Kanzi himself

could tell you that’s not true. (Kluger)

It is foolish to assume that, among the countless organisms on Earth, humans are the only living beings to possess intelligence. More accurately, “intelligence must have evolved from simpler organisms, since all animals face the same general challenges of life. They need to find mates, food, and a path through the woods, sea, or sky – tasks that Darwin argued require problem-solving and categorizing abilities” (Morell).

Animals may be intelligent, but does mental competence necessitate consciousness? Steven Pinker, a psychologist at Harvard University, says “It would be perverse to deny consciousness to mammals. Birds and other vertebrates are almost certainly conscious too. When it gets down to oysters and spiders, we’re on shakier ground” (Kluger). The debate over consciousness in less complex organisms remains inconclusive because it is difficult to evaluate subjective experiences. The Portia labiate spider may not have the potential to write poetry or contemplate philosophical theories, but do such limitations automatically eliminate the possibility for basic self-awareness? 67

Fish, for example, “can certainly learn complicated tasks, remember approximately 40 individuals, and measure their size relative to an opponent’s to decide whether to fight them. Therefore, at the very least they must have a sense of how big they are”

(Sneddon). In one way or another, most animals demonstrate conscious attributes, but do these traits enable the nonhuman to suffer?

Biologically speaking, most animals are built to feel pain: “Nociceptive nerves, which preferentially detect injury-causing stimuli, have been identified in a variety of animals . . . All vertebrates possess the primitive areas of the brain to process nociceptive information, namely the medulla, thalamus and limbic system” (Sneddon). However, pain perception partially relies on “the cerebral cortex, the most evolved region of the brain and one many animals lack” (Kluger). Despite the absence of a cerebral cortex, recent research has shown that sensory neurons in less advanced animals, like fish, “are sensitive to damaging stimuli and are physiologically identical to human nociceptors”

(Sneddon). Still, the existence of sensory neurons “is not enough to prove that it feels pain, because its reaction may be a reflex. Proof requires demonstrating that the animal’s behaviour is adversely affected by a potentially painful experience, and that these behavioural changes are not simple reflex responses” (Kirby). Actual animal pain can be signified through a variety of responses:

[T]hey eat less food, their normal behaviour is disrupted, their social behaviour is

suppressed and they may adopt unusual behaviour patterns (typically, highly

repetitive or stereotyped behaviours, such as rocking to and fro), they may emit 68

characteristic distress calls, and they experience respiratory and cardiovascular

changes, as well as inflammation and release of stress hormones. (Sneddon)

As substantiated by their secretion of stress pheromones when attacked and their writhing movements when sprayed with pesticides, insects and other invertebrates indicate the ability to feel pain (Eisemann).

The American astrophysicist Carl Sagan once said “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” (“Dr. Carl Sagan”). Fortunately, when considering animal intelligence and sentience, lack of evidence is not an issue. Animals commonly express signs of intellect and consciousness. In addition, visually and biologically, nonhumans seem capable of feeling pain. There is even proof of emotional anguish in animals, such as when “elephants appear to mourn their dead, lingering over a herd mate’s body with what looks like sorrow” (Kluger). Animals do not think like humans, but that does not mean that animals cannot think. Likewise, their perception of discomfort may be different from that of a human, but that does not mean that animals cannot suffer. My reason for not touching a hot stove is the same reason why an ant will avoid fire. Each person experiences the world in a unique way, but everyone shares the desire to live free from pain.

Mankind’s Modern Treatment of Nonhumans

In response to the growing knowledge concerning animal sentience, has Western society taken the necessary steps toward improving animal welfare? In 1958, “Congress passed the Humane Slaughter Act (HSA)” requiring “that all animals be rendered unconscious with just one application of an effective stunning device by a trained person 69

before being shackled and hoisted up on the line” (Eisnitz 24). This meager attempt at maintaining humane treatment is virtually ineffective because violations result in few penalties. A meat packing plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, “had already been slapped with one of the nation’s largest penalties for worker safety violations . . . The $1,500 maximum fine for animal abuse in Iowa wouldn’t even make a dent in the company’s petty cash” (111-112). Dave Carney, chairman of the National Joint Council of Food

Inspection Locals, says “The Humane Slaughter Act is a regulation on paper only. It is not being enforced” (191).

Today, feedlots are overcrowded and slaughterhouses have become fast-paced assembly lines. To make matters worse, “[w]ith huge corporate packing plants putting thousands of smaller operations out of business, slaughter line speeds have soared . . .

With line speeds this fast, workers often resort to brutality to keep the production line running” (Eisnitz 160). The USDA reports that “in 1980, it took the country’s 50 largest beef packing companies and 103 individual plants to slaughter three-quarters of the nation’s cattle . . . In 1996 more than 40 percent of the nation’s cattle were killed in a mere 11 plants that slaughter more than one million animals each year” (62). In addition, more chickens are slaughtered by the poultry industry “in one day than . . . in the entire year of 1930” (160). As the meat and dairy industry continue to increase both their production amounts and line speeds in order to reach the figures listed in table 2, so too does animal suffering increase.

70

Table 2. Annual Animal Death Statistics, By the Million (“Report”)

Temple Grandin, a professor at Colorado State University with a Ph.D. in animal science, is credited with designing the modern . In her book, Animals

Make Us Human, Grandin states “When I read all the scientific evidence about electrical stimulation of subcortical brain systems, the only logical conclusion was that the basic emotion systems are similar in humans and all other mammals” (301). Ironically, in that same chapter, she also defends the meat industry:

Over the years I have done lots of thinking and have come to the conclusion that

our relationship with the animals we use for food must be symbiotic . . . We

provide the farm animals with food and housing and in return, most of the

offspring from the breeding cows on the ranches are used for food . . . None of the

cattle that were at this slaughter plant would have been born if people had not

bred and raised them. (297)

Of course, Grandin’s beautiful vision of American meat and dairy production conveniently ignores “the quarter of a billion male chicks . . . that the poultry industry intentionally grinds up alive or smothers each year, or the millions of breeding hogs and 71

veal calves that spend their entire lives inside crates so small they can never turn around”

(Eisnitz 110). In reality, Western society, with the aid of Grandin’s facilities, has responded to animal sentience by subjecting the nonhuman to more suffering than ever before. CHAPTER IV

THAT ALL ___ ARE CREATED EQUAL

“If a group of beings from another planet were to land on Earth — beings who

considered themselves as superior to you as you feel yourself to be to other animals —

would you concede them the rights over you that you assume over other animals?” -

George Bernard Shaw (“Best Vegetarian”)

It is often easier to understand a difficult concept when examined from an alternative perspective. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan alluded to the potential existence of life on other planets during his speech to the United Nations: “I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world” (Hoberman). According to Reagan’s national security advisor, Colin L. Powell, the president decided to incorporate this statement into his speech after watching the film The Day the Earth Stood Still. Although the notion of an alien invasion is extremely far-fetched, Reagan provided the world with an effective hypothetical scenario, one that can be applied when considering animal rights.

Let us imagine that on Friday, December 21, 2012, an alien race decides to colonize Earth. As expected, these creatures from outer space are significantly more advanced than any human civilization. Due to their intellectual capabilities far beyond the limits of Homo sapiens, the invaders exhibit superior reasoning skills and enhanced senses. In fact, their brains are so highly developed that they are able to communicate

72 73

telepathically with one another. Furthermore, as a result of their exceptional intelligence, they possess groundbreaking technology and powerful weapons. Unfortunately, from the moment their ships land, the extraterrestrials begin to enslave all of humankind. The majority of human children are either slaughtered for meat or raised to become workers.

In addition, some infants are sold as family pets. Adult males are forced to perform manual labor, while the fully developed females endure artificial insemination for the purpose of becoming pregnant and producing nutritious milk. Humans are also used as test subjects for experimental procedures, and individuals with exotic features are put on display as public attractions in order to educate and entertain the alien population.

Despite having different roles in this new alien society, every human being is eventually slaughtered and processed as food or clothing.

Obviously, humans would object to such treatment, but how are the circumstances described above any different from animal exploitation? In comparison to human intelligence, the extraterrestrials are mentally superior; therefore, it is only natural for them to assert their dominance over inferior life forms. The annihilation of men, women and children appears unethical, but perhaps the aliens hold religious beliefs which grant them the God-given right to use humans as resources. Certainly, this situation is not a pleasant scenario to envision, but, for most animals, such a nightmare is a reality.

Consequently, what discriminating factors are acceptable when determining eligibility for basic rights?

74

Discriminating Factors

Before rights can be established, life must be present. In this way, the difference between living organisms and inanimate objects is clearly evident. Lifeless items, such as rocks, are not made of living cells and do not possess consciousness or an interest for their own well-being; therefore, they can be used and sold as pieces of property. Plants, nonhuman animals and humans are all living organisms, but “[n]ot everything that is alive is necessarily sentient . . . Plants do not behave in ways that indicate that they feel pain, and they lack neurological and physiological structures that we associate with sentience” (Francione 6). Traditionally, pain functions as a survival tool. Animals will avoid harmful threats because there is the potential risk of discomfort. Plants, on the other hand, cannot “avoid damage or death;” thus, it is “difficult to explain why plants would evolve mechanisms for sentience if such mechanisms were utterly useless” (7).

Ultimately, when granting rights, we need only consider the individuals listed under the category of animal.

In America, the law recognizes all human beings as equals, and they are guaranteed “the basic right not to be treated as a thing” (Francione 97). What special characteristics do Homo sapiens share which qualify them for this inalienable equality?

The Australian philosopher Peter Singer argues against the conventional logic behind egalitarianism:

Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and

sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellectual abilities,

differing amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others, 75

differing abilities to communicate effectively . . . In short, if the demand for

equality were based on actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop

demanding equality. It would be an unjustifiable demand. (Keller 170)

Infants, for instance, lack the ability to reason. Likewise, there are many humans that never gain cognitive skills because of a severe mental handicap. Should these individuals lose their status as equals, and, instead, be regarded as property to be used for food, clothing, entertainment and scientific experiments (Wilson)? Ethically speaking, there exists “no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to satisfying their needs and interests” (Keller 171). Without the existence of a unique quality that all humans possess, what should be the determining factor for equal consideration?

According to Jeremy Bentham, an eighteenth century utilitarian philosopher, the capacity to suffer is the only distinguishing feature required for basic, inherent equality:

“The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

(Bentham 143). If a living being can suffer, then “we have a moral obligation . . . not to impose unnecessary suffering” on that organism (Francione 5). Overall, Bentham’s humane treatment principle offers a simple, yet unchanging, rule: all sentient beings have the “basic right not to be treated exclusively as means to the ends of others” (92-93). In

Chapter 3, animal sentience was revealed in both vertebrates and invertebrates; therefore, despite their many differences from humans, nonhumans deserve the same “unalienable rights” afforded to mankind in the U.S. Constitution (“The Declaration”). Of course, we 76

do not have to recognize animals as equals, but this contradiction is no different than believing “that women have less inherent value than men, or that people of color have less inherent value than white people” (Francione 128).

Animals as Property: Ohio Law

Currently, there is a great deal of disparity between the U.S. legal system and humankind’s moral obligation concerning animal interests. Under Ohio law, animals are classified as personal property. In particular, the Ohio Revised Code identifies dogs as personalty: “Any dog which has been registered . . . and any dog not required to be registered under such sections shall be considered as personal property and have all the rights and privileges and be subject to like restraints as other livestock” (O.R.C. §955.03).

In other words, Ohio does not recognize a distinction between animals and inanimate objects; therefore, in cases where animals suffer an extreme amount of physical or emotional distress, their legal status deprives them of the right to sue (Paugh). In March

2001, a dog belonging to the Oberschlake family “was taken to Veterinary Associates

Animal Hospital . . . to have her teeth cleaned. Unfortunately, while . . . under anesthesia, the veterinarian also tried to spay her, even though she had previously been spayed as a puppy” (Oberschlake). The Oberschlake’s claimed that, as a result of the surgery, their dog developed health problems which caused her physical pain and emotional suffering. The Oberschlake’s sued the hospital, on behalf of their dog, for veterinary malpractice, negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of companionship. 77

The Appellate Court’s decision, in the 2nd District of Ohio, states “Whether or not one agrees with the view that pets are more than personal property, it is clear that Ohio does not recognize noneconomic damages for injury to companion animals”

(Oberschlake). The court acknowledges that animals can experience pain, but proving, through evidence, that an animal has suffered is pointless because they are still property.

Ohio’s restriction on noneconomic damages for animals also includes any infliction of serious emotional distress “because Ohio does not recognize a cause of action for serious emotional distress caused by injury to property” (Pacher). Compensatory damages can be collected by the owner if an animal is negligently injured or killed; however, such damages “are limited to the difference between the property’s fair market value before and immediately after the loss. Due to this standard, damages will seldom be awarded for the loss of a family pet, since pets have little or no market value” (Oberschlake).

Ohio anticruelty statutes “provide precious little protection to animals” because most animal welfare laws are intentionally vague and open to interpretation (Francione

72). The Ohio Revised Code broadly describes the proper procedures for humane slaughter in the state:

In the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all

animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an

electrical, chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective, before being

shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut . . . Whoever violates section 945.01 of the

Revised Code shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. (O.R.C. §945) 78

O.R.C. §904.3(A)(1), which defines the objectives of the Ohio Livestock Care Standards

Board, states that the board’s primary function is to consider the “[b]est management practices for the care and well-being of livestock.” In reality, the board, consisting of thirteen members, only contains two veterinarians and one agent from a county humane society (“Ohio Livestock”). With the rest of the board members representing the interests of farmers and consumers, true animal welfare is overlooked in favor of bigger profits and cheaper prices.

Animals as Property: Federal Law

Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906, and, as a result of this revealing account of the horrid conditions in American meatpacking plants, the Federal Meat

Inspection Act was passed that same year (Eisnitz 21). Over the past century, many other laws have been enacted in order to improve the working conditions for employees, the living conditions for animals and the quality of the meat for the consumer. However, there exists a huge discrepancy between federal law and what actually occurs in modern feedlots and slaughterhouses. As a rule, if “animal use can be characterized as part of an accepted practice of animal exploitation, then we generally permit the use – however trivial – because these practices are based on the economic status of animals as property”

(Francione 72).

The Humane Slaughter Act, as mentioned in Chapter 3, was passed in an attempt to alleviate animal suffering, but, because of inconsistent monitoring and lenient penalties, this law is rarely obeyed (Eisnitz 191). Moreover, the HSA “does not even apply to chickens and other birds, who account for approximately” 9.21 billion of the 79

10.153 billion animals slaughtered annually in America (Francione 75). In another example, the United States Code limits animal transportation to a maximum of “28 consecutive hours without unloading the animals for feeding, water, and rest;” nevertheless, a driver may violate this law if there are “unavoidable causes that could not have been anticipated or avoided when being careful” (49 U.S.C. §80502). Due to the law’s use of broad terminology, drivers can label every situation an “unavoidable cause.”

In this fashion, animals suffer, but farmers remain protected through legal loopholes.

During the Reagan and Bush administrations, huge corporations forced smaller farms and meat processing plants out of business, and, for the sake of efficiency and profit, the industry “became increasingly consolidated . . . line speeds had skyrocketed and so, too, had the number of cases of foodborne illnesses” (Eisnitz 158). For instance, as a result of deregulation, some workers are now responsible for cutting “the throats of as many as 1,100 hogs an hour – or nearly one hog every three seconds. With line speeds this fast, workers often resort to brutality to keep the production line running to keep from losing their jobs” (160). According to Dr. Lester Friedlander, a USDA veterinarian in Pennsylvania, slaughterhouses operate under minor supervision:

USDA veterinarians do have the freedom to walk around the plant, but they don’t

concentrate on HSA violations. Their main job is pathology . . . In most plants,

inspectors are only required to look at 5 to 10 percent of [live] animals in motion,

so most of the time no one’s seeing what goes on in the pens. On the other hand,

the inspectors on large kill floors are usually a few hundred feet from the stunning 80

area, and there’s so much equipment between them that they can hardly see

what’s going on over there. (205-206)

Some states have introduced new welfare laws limiting or prohibiting cruel farming practices that involve confinement of livestock, veal crates, battery cages, tail docking and foie gras; however, these improvements have little meaning when animals are still subjected to a miserable life and a gruesome death.

Sadly, animal treatment in the scientific community is held to an even lower standard than in the agricultural industry. When pet owners allow “animals to suffer untreated serious illnesses, the conduct may violate the anticruelty laws. But if a researcher engages in the exact same conduct . . . the conduct is protected by the law because the researcher is supposedly using the animal to generate a benefit” (Francione

71). The USDA has even “capitulated and adopted less rigorous standards that accord discretion to the attending veterinarian to determine the appropriate standards . . . in light of the needs and resources of a given research facility” (74). The Animal Welfare Act

“requires that researchers provide animals with a minimum level of care, such as minimal food, water, and cage space,” but this is done only “to ensure that all animals will be useful as producers of reliable scientific data” (71). Animals are morally eligible for humane treatment and equal rights, but, until the law recognizes them as more than personal property, they will continue to suffer.

Animals as People

Animal protection lawyer, Steven Wise, has an ambitious goal. He hopes to one day “overturn 2,000 years of law by winning basic common law rights for other sentient 81

beings” (Russell). At the present time, “the property status of animals . . . precludes the recognition of any animal interests beyond those required to ensure that humans benefit from the exploitation of” the nonhuman (Francione 98). In recent years, America has enacted many welfare laws, but, besides easing the conscience of the consumer, these regulations have had little impact on the actual lives of animals. Bestowing “‘better’ treatment to animals has nothing necessarily to do with making their interests morally significant” (100). Doubling the size of a chicken’s cage, for instance, will never result in her freedom, but it allows the public to feel better without condemning animal “use in research, in circuses, or as food” (Russell). Much like the welfare movements that occurred during American slavery, modern welfare initiatives are also ineffective because

“the law has presumed that the owners of animals will act to protect their economic interest in the animal property, and that their self-interest will provide a sufficient level of protection for the animal” (Francione 98). Realistically, there can be no compromise:

“either animal interests are morally significant . . . or animals are merely things that have no moral status” (100).

Wise believes that the nonhuman deserves “personhood” standing, which would include the right “to bodily liberty and bodily integrity” (Russell). It is important to note, however, that personhood does not mean that animals would become humans; rather, they would become, in the eyes of the law, “beings to whom the principle of equal consideration applies and to whom we have direct moral obligations” (Francione 101).

Richard Cupp, a Pepperdine University law professor, fears that the animal rights movement is not the best approach “because it pretends that animals have the capacity to 82

engage in a social contract when they don’t” (Russell). Then again, children and the mentally insane cannot enter into a legally binding contract, yet they still possess basic rights and protections. Extending rights to animals does not mean that animals should be allowed to vote, acquire a driver’s license, or own property; instead, they should only be entitled to “receive three essential human rights – life, liberty, and freedom from physical and psychological torture” (Russell).

By applying the principle of equal consideration to all sentient beings, we are not vowing to protect animals from being harmed in the wild, nor are we guaranteeing that there will never be an incident of accidental injury. Acknowledging animals as people simply means that “we must extend to animals the basic right not to be treated as our resources” (Francione 101). The concept is relatively straightforward, but its application requires Americans to completely change their lifestyle. The way we eat, the clothes we wear, the cosmetic products we use, the medicines we take and the activities we enjoy all rely on some form of animal exploitation. These habits are extremely difficult to break,

“but that does not mean they are morally justifiable. It is precisely in situations where both moral issues and strong personal preferences come into play that we should be most careful to think clearly” (188). The legal system is a process that involves “incremental change;” therefore, it may be years before animals gain “human-style civil and legal rights” (Russell). Regrettably, waiting for a more hopeful tomorrow is a luxury that many animals do not have. Their individual fates depend on the choices that humans make today. I can only hope that this thesis has provided enough evidence to convince my readers to make the right ones. CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals

are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi (“Best Vegetarian”)

Several years ago, my father and I went grocery shopping at a local health food store. While walking from one aisle to the next, we came across the meat and seafood department. For a moment, we stopped and discussed, between ourselves, the many benefits of a vegan diet. During our private conversation, a middle-aged man approached us and proudly proclaimed, “I eat meat because it gives animals a purpose. Without me, they would have no reason to exist.” At the time, his comment left me speechless.

Looking back, however, I wonder what his response would have been if I had asked him to explain his position. What motivates so many Americans to continue a lifestyle built upon the exploitation and oppression of the nonhuman? Is Western society’s excessive use of animals based on need, selfishness, ignorance, or deep-rooted speciesism?

Animal products and by-products are no longer needed for survival. In fact, a vegan diet plays an essential role in maintaining optimum human health and environmental wellness. I highly doubt that the man I met in the grocery store would undergo extreme hardship if he was suddenly unable to eat steak. Rather than acting out of necessity, the American consumer is instead driven by a schizophrenic morality. To the casual observer, Western society appears to respect the interests of the nonhuman.

83 84

In the United States, pets are treated like family members and welfare laws are passed with unwavering support. Then again, animal use has increased substantially, generating

10.153 billion deaths in meat production alone. Animal abuse is condemned as long as human interests are not adversely affected. Most meat eaters would never even consider harming their beloved companion animals, yet they fiercely defend the enslavement and destruction of livestock and wildlife. It is inexcusable to attribute man’s destructive conduct to a lack of knowledge or self-discipline. What, then, is the true reason for this erratic behavior?

Western society’s current relationship with the nonhuman is a product of religious beliefs, literary representation, historical exploitation and scientific discoveries. The

Judeo-Christian faith has firmly established man’s superiority in the Universe. Made in the image of God, Homo sapiens possess dominion over all of creation. Rather than interpreting this God-given authority as one that requires responsibility and stewardship, mankind perceives animals as resources to be exploited for human benefit. Throughout history, literary works have aided the church by emphasizing the degraded nature of the nonhuman. In addition, societies have justified slavery and genocide by assigning animal characteristics to humans. Despite the scientific evidence verifying animal sentience, humans prefer to visualize nonhumans as unconscious machines that can neither think nor feel pain.

For most Americans, , even when acknowledged, is still not enough to validate a major lifestyle change. Beginning at birth, children are improperly exposed to animals through anthropomorphic methods. As adults, men and women are 85

constantly encouraged to participate in activities that directly cause animal suffering.

Americans are brainwashed by their culture into believing that the nonhuman is morally insignificant. Accordingly, when compassion is absent, the law must require a person’s rights to be recognized. In the United States, African Americans and women did not gain equality by the kindness of strangers. Similarly, the man I met in the grocery store will probably never consider the interests of animals unless he is obligated under the law.

Until animals are granted legal personhood status, they will remain nothing more than expendable pieces of property.

There is a massive amount of material concerning the nonhuman. Entire books have been written about . Countless essays and articles discuss animal sentience. Even Alex, the African Grey parrot, has a few books detailing his life. The most difficult aspect of writing this thesis was deciding which elements to include and which to cut. Each chapter could easily be expanded into its own thesis project.

However, my intention has not been to uncover every detail involving anthropomorphism or animal intelligence. Instead, I wish to provide the reader only the tools necessary to act. If I am able to convince just one individual to reconsider his or her lifestyle choices in recognition of animal interests, then all of my efforts will have been worthwhile.

In October of 2011, my father and I visited Farm Sanctuary, an animal protection organization located in Watkins Glen, New York. While touring their farm, we met a remarkable goat who had experienced, firsthand, the effects of being personal property.

When Juniper arrived at Farm Sanctuary, she “had only three-quarters of her back left leg and no hoof on her back right leg. Sharp bone protruded through both back legs, and she 86

was dehydrated and malnourished. The tips of both her ears were missing and her body was covered with lice” (“Rescue”). Juniper’s injuries, which were the result of frostbite, forced doctors to amputate her back left leg. Today, with the help of a prosthetic limb, she roams freely around the farm. Juniper, as shown in figure 10, is living proof that animals can suffer, but she also demonstrates that animals can experience happiness.

Americans know the difference between what is right and wrong, which is why most consumers could never slaughter an animal themselves. As a society, it is time we realize that using animal products and by-products is the same as abusing and killing animals, like Juniper, with our own hands.

Fig. 10. Second Chances (Juniper)

Works Cited

Adams, Carol J., and . “Introduction.” Animals and Women: Feminist

Theoretical Explorations. Ed. Carol J. Adams and Josephine Donovan. Durham:

Duke UP, 1995. 1-8. Print.

Agassiz, Louis. Morton Race Table. Digital image. RACE. American Anthropological

Association, 2007. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.

“Animal Behaviour (I): Cold-blooded Cunning.” The Economist. The Economist

Newspaper, 14 July 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.

“Animal Fighting Case Study: Michael Vick.” Animal Legal Defense Fund: Winning the

Case Against Cruelty. Animal Legal Defense Fund, Jan. 2011. Web. 21 Jan.

2011.

“anthropomorphism.” Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Merriam-

Webster, Incorporated, 2012. Web. 22 Jan. 2012.

“Apple’s ‘Nike moment’: Dissecting the human cost of iPhones.” The Economic Times.

Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd., 8 Mar. 2012. Web. 22 Apr. 2012.

“Behind the Myth: Cage Free Eggs.” HumaneMyth.org. Web. 5 Feb. 2012.

Belsey, Catherine. Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford UP,

2002. Print.

Bentham, Jeremy, and John Bowring. The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Now First

Collected under the Superintendence of His Executor, John Bowring. Edinburgh:

87 88

William Tait, 1838. Print.

“Best Vegetarian Quotes.” Veganise.Me. Web. 18 Mar. 2012.

Bhanoo, Sindya N. “To Find Tasty Larvae, Lizards Use Their Brains.” The New York

Times. The New York Times Co., 18 July 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.

“Bigger Not Necessarily Better, When It Comes to Brains.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily,

17 Nov. 2009. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.

Blakeslee, Sandra. “Minds of Their Own: Birds Gain Respect.” The New York Times:

Science. The New York Times Co., 1 Feb. 2005. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.

Brunner, Borgna, and Mark Hughes. “Thanksgiving Traditions: A Presidential Pardon —

Infoplease.com.” Infoplease: All the Knowledge You Need. Pearson Education,

Inc., 2007. Web. 5 Jan. 2012.

“Burger King Cheesy Bacon Tendercrisp.” Suicide Food. Digital Image. Burger King Co.

24 Aug. 2008. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.

Butler, Margaret. “Nike’s Love Affair with Sweatshops: Still Doing It.” Labor Notes.

Labor Education and Research Project, 29 Apr. 2010. Web. 22 Apr. 2012.

Campbell, Colin T. The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and

Long-term Health. Dallas: BenBella, 2005. Print.

Carus, Felicity. “UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet.” Guardiannews.com.

The Guardian, 2 June 2010. Web. 28 Dec. 2012.

Cenicola, Tony. “Chicken’s Attraction Is Truly Skin Deep.” The New York Times: Dining

& Wine. Digital Image. The New York Times Co., 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 4 Feb.

2012.

89

“Chickens and Turkeys: Bred for Pain.” Chooseveg.com. Mercy for Animals – Animal

Rights Organization Promoting a Vegetarian Diet. Web. 5 Jan. 2012.

Columbus, Christopher. “Letters of Columbus, Describing the Results of His First

Voyage.” The Bedford Anthology of American Literature. Vol. 1 Eds. Susan

Belasco and Linck Johnson. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. 68-73. Print.

Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness: Authoritative Text, Backgrounds and Contexts

Criticism. Ed. Paul B. Armstrong. 4th ed. New York: Norton, 2006. Print.

Davies, Gareth Huw. “Bird Brains.” The Life of Birds. PBS. Web. 3 Mar. 2012.

“The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription.” The Charters of Freedom. National

Archives and Records Administration. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.

De Las Casas, Bartolomé. “A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies.” Early

American Writings. Ed. Carla Mulford. Oxford University Press. 2002. 52-60.

Print.

DiGregorio, Sarah. “Chicken’s Attraction Is Truly Skin Deep.” The New York Times:

Dining & Wine. The New York Times Co., 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.

“Dr. Carl Sagan quotes.” ThinkExist.com Quotations Online. 1 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 Mar.

2012.

Dunayer, Joan. “Sexist Words, Speciesist Roots.” Animals and Women: Feminist

Theoretical Explorations. Ed. Carol J. Adams and Josephine Donovan. Durham:

Duke UP, 1995. 11-31. Print.

“Eagles, Michael Vick Reach 6-year Deal.” ESPN: NFL. ESPN, 30 Aug. 2011. Web. 21

Jan. 2012.

90

Eisemann, C. H., W. K. Jorgensen, D. J. Merritt, M. J. Rice, B. W. Cribb, P. D. Webb,

and M. P. Zalucki. “Do Insects Feel Pain? — A Biological View.” Experientia

40.2 (1984): 164-67. Print.

Eisnitz, Gail A. Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane

Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry. Amherst, New York: Prometheus, 2007.

Print.

“A Farm Sanctuary Research Report: The Welfare of Cattle in Dairy Production.” Farm

Sanctuary. Farm Sanctuary, Inc., June 2005. Web. 28 Dec. 2011.

49 United States Code Ann. §80502 (1994). Web.

Francione, Gary L. Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? Philadelphia:

Temple UP, 2005. Print.

Freeman, Carrie P. “Will You Pardon Your Turkey & Eat Him Too, Mr President?”

Common Dreams: Building Progressive Community. Common Dreams, 20 Nov.

2011. Web. 1 Jan. 2012.

Gandhi, Renu, and Suzanne M. Snedeker. “Consumer Concerns About Hormones in

Food.” Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors. Cornell

University, June 2000. Web. 28 Dec. 2011.

Grandin, Temple, and Catherine Johnson. Animals Make Us Human: Creating the Best

Life for Animals. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010. Print.

Hance, Jeremy. “Uncovering the intelligence of insects, an interview with Lars Chittka.”

Mongabay.com. Mongabay, 29 June 2010. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.

“Happy Cows TV.” Real California Dairy. Digital Image. California Milk Advisory

91

Board. 2011. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.

“Hatchery Horrors: The Egg Industry’s Tiniest Victims.” mercyforanimals.org. Mercy

for Animals – Animal Rights Organization Promoting a Vegetarian Diet. Web. 7

Jan. 2012.

“Heavenbound BBQ.” Suicide Food. Digital Image. 11 Apr. 2011. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.

“The Hidden Lives of Cows.” PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2012.

Web. 18 Feb. 2012.

Hoberman, J. “The Cold War Sci-Fi Parable That Fell to Earth.” The New York Times:

Movies. The New York Times Co., 31 Oct. 2008. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.

Hoffman, Thomas J. “Moving beyond dualism: A dialogue with Western European and

American Indian views of spirituality.” Social Science Journal. 34 (1997): 447.

Print.

“Honey Nut Cheerios: Honey Defender.” Honeydefender.com. General Mills. Web. 4

Feb. 2012.

Huggan, Graham, and Helen Tiffin. Postcolonial Ecocriticism: Literature, Animals,

Environment. London: Routledge, 2010. Print.

Juniper, Watkins Glen, New York. 23 Oct. 2011. Personal photograph by Joseph Sabo.

JPEG file.

Keim, Brandon. “Humans and Chimpanzees Share Roots of Language.” Wired.com.

Conde Nast Digital, 28 Feb. 2008. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.

Keller, David R. Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions. Chichester, West Sussex:

Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

92

Kirby, Alex. “Fish Do Feel Pain, Scientists Say.” BBC News. British Broadcasting

Corporation, 30 Apr. 2003. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.

Kluger, Jeffrey. “Inside The Minds Of Animals. (Cover Story).” Time 176.7 (2010): 36-

43. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Mar. 2012.

Leal, Manuel, and Brian J. Powell. “Behavioural flexibility and problem-solving in a

tropical lizard.” Biology Letters. Royal Society Publishing, 23 June 2011. Web.

11 Jan. 2012.

Lee, J. “The Modern Dairy Factories.” Digital image. The Conscientious Cuisine. 3 Sept.

2007. Web. 3 Nov. 2011.

McCrone, John. “Smarter Than The Average Bug.” New Scientist 190.2553 (2006): 37-

39. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Mar. 2012.

Montgomery, Sy. “Stalking Spiders.” Discover Magazine. Kalmbach Publishing Co., 5

Feb. 2004. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.

Morell, Virginia. “Minds of their Own: Animals are smarter than you think.” National

Geographic Magazine. National Geographic Society, Mar. 2008. Web. 11 Jan.

2012.

9 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §904.03(A)(1) (2010). Web.

9 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §945 (1965). Web.

9 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §955.03 (1953). Web.

Oberschlake v. Veterinary Assoc. Animal Hosp., 151 Ohio App.3d 741, 785 N.E.2d 811

(Ohio App. 2 Dist., 2003).

“Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board: Board Members.” Ohio Livestock Care

93

Standards Board. Ohio Department of Agriculture. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

Pacher v. Invisible Fence of Dayton, 154 Ohio App.3d 744, 798 N.E.2d 1121 (Ohio

2003).

“pardon.” Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Merriam-Webster,

Incorporated, 2012. Web. 1 Jan. 2012.

Paugh v. Hanks, 6 Ohio St.3d 72, 451 N.E.2d 759 (Ohio 1983).

Pearson, Harry. “Do Fish Have Feelings Too?” Guardiannews.com. The Guardian, 20

June 2007. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.

Pepperberg, Irene M. “Talking with Alex: Logic.” Scientific American Presents:

Exploring Intelligence. Scientific American, Inc., Aug. 2004. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.

Pijoan, Teresa. White Wolf Woman And Other Native American Transformation Myths.

Little Rock: August House Publishers, Inc., 1992. Print.

“RACE - History - One Race or Several Species.” RACE. American Anthropological

Association, 2007. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.

Ralph, Talia. “Homicide No Longer a Leading Cause of Death in the US.” GlobalPost.

11 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Jan. 2012.

Reilly, Rick. “Time to Forgive Vick Is Here.” ESPN: Commentary. ESPN, 3 Jan. 2012.

Web. 21 Jan. 2012.

“Report: Number of Animals Killed In US Increases in 2010.” Farm Animal Rights

Movement. Web. 14 Jan. 2012.

“Rescue & Adoptions.” Farm Sanctuary. Farm Sanctuary, Inc. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

Russell, Sue. “Should Animals Be Considered People?” Miller-McCune. Miller-McCune

94

Center, 20 Dec. 2011. Web. 22 Dec. 2011.

Santayana, George. The Life of Reason; Or, The Phases of Human Progress,. Vol. 1.

New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1905. Print.

“savage.” Oxford Dictionaries: The world’s most trusted dictionaries. Oxford University

Press, 2012. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.

Schandler, Stephanie. “Starkist Tuna: Always in Good Taste That Tastes Good Too.”

Examiner.com. Digital Image. Clarity Digital Group LLC, 8 Feb. 2010. Web. 4

Feb. 2012.

“Scientists Highlight Fish ‘intelligence.’” BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation,

31 Aug. 2003. Web. 21 Jan. 2011.

Scott, Michael. “Anthony Sowell to Die for Murders of 11 Women; Judge Accepts Jury’s

Advice.” Cleveland.com. Cleveland Live LLC, 12 Aug. 2011. Web. 12 Feb. 2012.

Sherrer, Nathan. “Probing the Relationship Between Native Americans and Ecology.”

Journal of Science and Health at the University of Alabama. 4 (August 2006): 16-

18. Print.

Sneddon, Lynne U. “Can Animals Feel Pain?” Pain. The Wellcome Trust. Web. 10 Mar.

2012.

Soniak, Matt. “Free Bird: The History of Presidential Turkey Pardoning.” Mental_floss:

Where Knowledge Junkies Get Their Fix. Mental Floss Inc., 21 Nov. 2011. Web.

21 Jan. 2012.

Stanley, Steven M. Earth System History. 3rd ed. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman, 2009.

Print.

95

Sterne, Laurence. A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy by Mr. Yorick. 2nd

ed. Vol. 1. London: J. Creswick, 1768. Print.

Stowe, Harriet Beecher. Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Ed. Stephen Railton. Boston: Bedford/St.

Martin’s, 2008. Print.

“‘A Tale of the Foundation of the Great Island, Now North America’ (Tuscarora).” The

Bedford Anthology of American Literature. Vol. 1 Eds. Susan Belasco and Linck

Johnson. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. 37. Print.

Thoreau, Henry David. “Resistance to Civil Government.” Bedford Anthology of

American Literature. Vol. 1 Eds. Susan Belasco and Linck Johnson. New York:

Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. 794-809. Print.

Toglia, Michelle. “Paris Hilton’s Mini Dog Mansion.” Paw Nation: Humans Welcome.

AOL Inc., 12 June 2009. Web. 21 Jan. 2012.

“Turkey Terrific.” Suicide Food. Digital Image. 15 May 2011. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.

“Unit Two: Studying Africa through the Social Studies.” Exploring Africa. Digital Image.

MATRIX. 4 Feb. 2012.

“Vegan and Vegetarian Quotes.” . Web. 18 Mar. 2012.

Viegas, Jennifer. “Scientists find out that dolphins ‘talk’ like humans.” Msnbc.com.

MSNBC Digital Network, 6 Sept. 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.

Waldau, Paul. The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals. New

York: Oxford UP, 2002. Print.

“Welcome to Charlie’s® Page.” StarKist. Digital Image. StarKist Co., 2012. Web. 4 Feb.

2012.

96

Westervelt, Miriam O., and Lynn G. Llewellyn. Youth and Wildlife: The Beliefs and

Behaviors of Fifth and Sixth Grade Students regarding Non-domestic Animals.

Washington, D.C.: Division of Program Plans, Office of Planning and Budget,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior, 1986. Print.

Whitmire, Lou. “Chardon Tragedy: Are Local Schools Prepared?”

MansfieldNewsJournal.com. Gannett Company Inc., 4 Mar. 2012. Web. 4 Mar.

2012.

“Who Is the Cheerios® Mascot?” Cheerios. Digital Image. General Mills, 2012. Web. 4

Feb. 2012.

Wilson, Scott. “Animals and Ethics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 13 Jan. 2010.

Web. 7 Jan. 2012.

Yule, George. The Study of Language. 4th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press,

2010. Print.

Works Consulted

Adams, Carol J. Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. New

York: Continuum, 1995. Print.

Adams, Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-vegetarian Critical Theory.

New York: Continuum, 2004. Print.

Arluke, Arnold, and Clinton R. Sanders. Regarding Animals. Philadelphia: Temple UP,

1996. Print.

Baker, Steve. Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation. Manchester:

Manchester UP, 1993. Print.

Baur, Gene. Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds about Animals and Food.

New York: Touchstone, 2008. Print.

Bekoff, Marc. The Animal Manifesto: Six Reasons for Expanding Our Compassion

Footprint. Novato: New World Library, 2010. Print.

Bekoff, Marc. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy,

Sorrow, and Empathy--and Why They Matter. Novato: New World Library, 2007.

Print.

Best, Steven, and Anthony J. Nocella. Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on

the Liberation of Animals. New York: Lantern, 2004. Print.

Foer, Jonathan Safran. . New York: Little, Brown and, 2009. Print.

Francione, Gary L., and . The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or

Regulation? New York: Columbia UP, 2010. Print.

97 98

Francione, Gary L. Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation.

New York: Columbia UP, 2009. Print.

Francione, Gary L. Animals, Property, and the Law. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1995.

Print.

Francione, Gary L. Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement.

Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1996. Print.

Herzog, Hal. Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s so Hard to Think

Straight about Animals. New York: Harper, 2010. Print.

Hribal, Jason. Fear of the Animal Planet: The Hidden History of Animal Resistance.

Petrolia: CounterPunch, 2010. Print.

Joy, Melanie. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to

Carnism: The Belief System That Enables Us to Eat Some Animals and Not

Others. San Francisco: Conari, 2010. Print.

Kalof, Linda, and Amy J. Fitzgerald. The Animals Reader: The Essential Classic and

Contemporary Writings. Oxford: Berg, 2007. Print.

Linzey, Andrew. The Link between Animal Abuse and Human Violence. Brighton,

England: Sussex Academic, 2009. Print.

Lovitz, Dara. Muzzling a Movement: The Effects of Anti-terrorism Law, Money, and

Politics on Animal Activism. New York: Lantern, 2010. Print.

Marcus, Erik. Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, & Money. Boston: Brio, 2005. Print.

Mason, Jim. An Unnatural Order: Why We Are Destroying the Planet and Each Other.

New York: Lantern, 2005. Print. 99

Nelson, Barney. The Wild and the Domestic: Animal Representation, Ecocriticism, and

Western American Literature. Reno: University of Nevada, 2000. Print.

Nibert, David Alan. Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and

Liberation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Print.

Patterson, Charles. Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust. New

York: Lantern, 2002. Print.

Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights: Updated with a New Preface. Berkeley:

University of California, 2004. Print.

Scully, Matthew. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to

Mercy. New York: St. Martin’s, 2003. Print.

Simons, John. Animal Rights and the Politics of Literary Representation. Basingstoke:

Palgrave, 2001. Print.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. New

York: Harper Perennial, 2009. Print.

Singer, Peter. : The Second Wave. Malden: Blackwell Pub., 2006.

Print.

Smith, Wesley J. A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights

Movement. New York: Encounter, 2010. Print.

Spiegel, Marjorie. The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery. New York:

Mirror, 1996. Print.

Steiner, Gary. Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status Animals in the

History of Western Philosophy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 2005. Print. 100

Sunstein, Cass R., and Martha Craven Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and

New Directions. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Print.

Torres, Bob. Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. Oakland: AK,

2007. Print.

Wise, Steven M. An American Trilogy: Death, Slavery, and Dominion on the Banks of

the Cape Fear River. Philadelphia: Da Capo, 2009. Print.

Wise, Steven M. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Cambridge:

Perseus, 2002. Print.