Who Knew Splitting Something So Small Could Kill Us All?

By Cathy Doodnauth

One would think humans would look for safe, sustainable ways to continuously power our growing world. Instead, we go for the one main power source that could blow up the entire planet in one big bang! Ironic, isn’t it? Nuclear power plants are, in my opinion, the most ridiculous energy source our species has gone after: big, radioactive power plants that (if one measly thing should go wrong) will explode within minutes. A huge mushroom is created, a gigantic blast that ruthlessly kills the people and the environment surrounding it faster than they can evacuate. When you look at the idea in that certain perspective, it’s clear how much of a bad idea it was; yet, the world ignored their brains and followed the ideas of their power-hungry, money-hungry hearts. There are over 435 nuclear power reactors worldwide, with more and more being proposed every day. The bad idea was ignored. And since then, the bad idea has been regretted day after day after the first few disasters.

When I first heard that the world had nuclear power plants as a means to power the world, I was instantly angry. Immediately after my anger, confusion hit: was the world taking their nuclear weapons and rewiring them to power the grid? Through this helpful site on nuclear power plants, one can clear their confusion on how humans harvest energy from nuclear power. I believe it is important to understand how nuclear power plants work and where the danger lies before forming an opinion. Nuclear power sites are not created with half-assed workers with bad intentions. There are strict rules and regulations that allow these plants to run. 

But sometimes, we are loose with rules and not on point with regulations. Some believe this is what leads to nuclear meltdowns. On March 11^th, 2011, a staggering 49-foot tsunami triggered by a deadly 9.0-magnitude earthquake hit the Northeastern coast of Japan where two nuclear power plants are situated. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster was a terrifying catastrophe that no one could stop. The world watched silently and waited for the outcome as their hope for easy power dwindled. As I have learned, these power plants split atoms and require cooling of the heat created. Without that cooling water, a meltdown could occur. The tsunami took out the cooling for 3 out of 6 nuclear reactors. Deadly explosions occurred, radioactive matter leaked, the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale even ruled it a stage 7, major accident, out of 7 stages. Four years later, the Tokyo Electric Power Company sent a robot probe inside the broken reactor in Fukushima to check on radiation levels and damage. Four years, and the radiation levels are at "9.7 sieverts per hour, which is high enough to kill a human within an hour.” Taking the regulations seriously as one should, lives could have been saved and this aftermath avoided.

After the disaster at Fukushima, the world took a somber look at what nuclear power could possibly do to us in the future. Japan barely survived nuclear attacks decades ago, and scraped by a modern day meltdown; but do we want to keep risking ourselves like this? Blind is a short film that shows what our future could look like if we continue down this path, where we take things for granted and keep pushing past the limit. This short film is worth the watch: the eeriness of the gas mask on the little girl, the loud, foreshadowing cry of the black raven, and the flash of women in the infamous “speak no evil, see no evil” poses create a look into the ominous, yet realistic future we face. A future where gas masks are necessary to go about normal life; where we personalize our masks as we do our other belongings; where death follows no matter how careful we are. We clearly refuse to fight this oncoming storm, as we don’t follow our own rules. Is nuclear power really worth the consequences?

Rules are made to be followed, but are also to keep us safe. For people with one of the most dangerous jobs, it seems like nuclear power workers don’t try as hard as they should. In Full Body Burden, author Kristen Iverson discusses the drama of a nuclear testing site in nearby Rocky Flats. Similar to places today, they didn’t respect their own rules too much:

“There is ‘little indication’ that work was performed according to federal requirements. But little has changed. And the government will continue to press Rocky Flats to make                    bombs for at least another decade.”

According to Iverson, a Depart of Energy worker walked into a room on radioactive location, and is immediately contaminated. He is instantaneously in danger simply because the signs to warn him of the danger were not in sight, due to another employee’s mistake.  A mistake as nonsensical and silly as that could cost this man his life. Iverson is effective in getting this point across through the use of ethos; she got intertwined with many things that happened in Rocky Flats, and knows better than any other of the stories.

Fun fact about nuclear power plants: they create nuclear, radioactive wastes that are dangerous to every species on the planet. Apparently, this isn’t a good enough reason to end the usage of this power as an energy source. So as we continue creating more nuclear plants, we are found with the difficult task of finding a place to store all the radioactive crap that won’t turn us all into superheroes. Currently, we store the wastes in areas that no one cared about—deserts, abandoned plants, etc. But more and more of these areas are breached, and found unsuitable for their task, as decomposition of highly radioactive wastes takes thousands of years. In 2009, Into Eternity was created to inform the world about Onkalo, the underground nuclear waste storage facility that has been in construction since 2004. The purpose of this film is to inform the audience of a potential area to store harmful waste for good. This film is very effective due to what they decide to shoot for the film. Including what the underground area looks like appeals to the audience who will (hopefully) never see it. Having specialists discuss that the aboveground world will change shows that they believe in this project and in the future workers, despite what may happen.

Nuclear power, in weapons or in plants, is unpredictable. Humans trick themselves into thinking they can manipulate it but in the end, the power always surprises us in some way. An oceanographic institution’s scientist, Ken Buesseler, has detected traces of the Fukushima radioactivity on North American coastlines: ‘“Radioactivity can be dangerous, and we should be carefully monitoring the oceans after what is certainly the largest accidental release of radioactive contaminants to the oceans in history.”’ While the small traces aren’t a problem to humans yet, they could bring forth changes in the environment that we won’t be able to see for years. At the time of the incident, no one imagined radioactivity reaching the opposite coasts. Four years down the line, and here it is. The irregularity of these plants definitely adds more onto the anti-nuclear list.

Nuclear power, of all energy sources, is the most dangerous. We’ve known that since the first split atom was used in warfare all those years ago. And yet, we continue to build on such a hazardous power, pushing the limits and risking the safety of the entire planet. Our initial curiosity has changed into an addiction—a fact supported by a time-lapse of every nuclear explosion since the first. We started, and never stopped, whether it is through warfare or as a means to power the world, nuclear power is not the way to go. We have the chance and the means to change this energy source now. It’s time we acted on it, and put the earth in front of our own desires for the first time.

Whether with guns or words, it's time to act

By Cathy Doodnauth

We’ve all seen protests before. Whether in pictures or videos, on the television or computer, we’ve seen people just like us carrying signs for change. We’ve seen them rallying and yelling at the authorities, getting arrested for their beliefs, and doing it all over again the next day. From strikes over wages to marches for equality to violent rebellions, activism is definitely not a new idea. It’s a form of change that has been around for centuries as the only way for the unheard to fight for their rights and fix the problems. There is only one question now: Is activism the answer to the many environmental issues and movements of the twenty-first century? 

Activism comes in many shapes and forms, and so, can be either violent or nonviolent. There are arguments for both of these aspects of activism, but no one can truly say one is better than the other. In different cases, both kinds of activists have reached their goals through their own methods; in fact, both have been already used in the modern environmental movement. But which method is the right approach for environmental activists? 

Most environmental documentaries feature a specific issue and the reason why it is a huge problem. I have not seen (or heard of) many that showcase an activist’s fight and the legal issues that follow. Tim DeChristopher was a college aged activist that made a peaceful decision, knowing that he could go to jail for years for it. And he made that choice anyway. The documentary explaining his story, Bidder 70, is a very influential film to environmentalists everywhere. This particular style of documentary goes more into the legal issues surrounding an individual’s decision to break the law, just to make a point. It’s very effective, simply because DeChristopher was a college student influenced by a lecture of Dr. Terry Root, a scientist for the International Panel on Climate Change. He was one student that believed so strongly in the need for change that he put his freedom in danger. His decision speaks to students all around the world; it shows that young adults can make a difference despite their age, and it shows that one person can spark a rebellion. The aftermath of DeChristopher’s decision shows that he had people, environmentalists or not, following in his footsteps and protesting. It shows that one person, young or old, can fight for what they believe in and create changes. And I believe this is the best kind of activism there is. 

Activism is easy to see in developed countries, where forming beliefs and standing up for change can be easier than it is in other areas around the world. The U.S. is a prime example of activists fighting for change, especially through peaceful marches like the recent People’s Climate March in New York City.) Despite any backlash they receive, more and more activists are standing up. In the United Kingdom, activists are starting to stand up as well. Following the aforementioned People’s Climate March, the Campaign Against Climate Change helped countries around the world organize their own marches. This includes the U.K. as a large campaign to show the governments that their people care about the earth. The Time to Act March in London was a huge success. The website is effective in showing the march’s turnout through videos and pictures, allowing the viewer to feel like they protested in front of Parliament too. The organization’s website shows that while the march had over 20,000 supporters, there were other activists around the country protesting as well, such as Plane Stupid. This organization based in England fights climate change by protesting the addition of a third runway at Heathrow Airport during the Time to Act campaign. Their method was also incredibly effective: I believe that their outlandish costumes and funny antics caused more people to pay attention and learn about the issue at the airport. Reaching more eyes this way is beneficial to their fight. 

Activism is not as black and white as most people think. It can come in many different forms, based on what the belief may be. In Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel, The Year of the Flood, activism takes place in the form of cults. The future holds sects for every belief, from a heavy military standpoint to a newfound interpretation of God’s words. God’s Gardeners are the main group of this novel, their lives focused on the preservation of animal and plant life. Through their new understanding of God’s mission, they become peaceful activists determined to save nature from the Waterless Flood (a natural apocalypse changing the earth.) Atwood’s writing is effective in portraying a peaceful activist group because of her attention to detail: at the head of every chapter, there is a hymn written by Adam One, the leader of God’s Gardeners that teaches about their peaceful ideas about nature. These hymns act as guidelines that show the reader that activists can be peaceful while doing right by the world. 

Like I mentioned before, there have been cases of violence in the environmental movement alongside the peaceful. Eco-terrorism is a term coined by authorities worldwide when faced with radical environmentalists. There are some groups that do not mind taking the radical route; an example of such an eco-terrorist group is found in the film The East. The film revolves around an anarchical environmental group called The East that uses violent methods to inspire change. The group is at first portrayed as evil and isolated; but as main character Sarah delves deeper, the group is seen to have the right ideas with the wrong methods. This film’s style makes it effective in the environmental world: at first the group is unknown and thus, dangerous—this is the same way people view environmental groups and issues if they are uneducated. As the film progresses, truths of many companies are exposed and the group is not as evil; in fact, many of their acts (while radical) seem justified to the viewer. This relates to people who have become educated and now fight for the earth.  The most effective part of the film was the end—Sarah’s choice to act by convincing the other agents of the truth shows that violence is not always the answer. Her method brought the same effects as the group’s violent methods would have. This is effective because it shows that peaceful negotiation can cause good changes in environmental issues. 

Writer David Goodman traveled to southern Ecuador, learning about the struggles of the Sarayaku people against those who would take the land by force. In his article, “Deep in the Amazon, a Tiny Tribe Is Beating Big Oil,” he discusses the Sarayaku people of Ecuador who have fended off oil companies for years. While other areas of the country give up land for drilling, this indigenous group continuously fights off the big oil companies and the government In an example of violence in activism, the Sarayaku have (justifiably) ‘poisoned’ the soldiers after they forced themselves onto the land, by giving them strong batches of alcohol:

“As their drinking binge ended, the petroleros fell asleep. When they awoke, what they saw sobered them: They were staring into the muzzles of their own automatic weapons. Wielding the guns were the women and men of Sarayaku.”

This article is effective in showing how an indigenous people fought off oil companies and soldiers by going behind the scenes. The point of view is of the Sarayaku people, rather than the government’s. This tactic allows the readers to see what it is like to almost lose the land that provides for every aspect of life. It shows that in this case, their actions were justifiable. 

Julia Corbett, author of Communicating Nature, discusses deep ecology; the philosophy where all living beings are worthy of equal status through radical means if necessary. Out of all the activist philosophies she mentions, deep ecology is ideal to activists who do not mind violence in order to create changes. Kinessa Johnson is an ex-army veteran who devotes her time to hunting those who would hunt the wild animals of Africa. Yes, you read right; she is the definition of a badass. Through the VETPAW organization, Johnson patrols reserves to stop poachers from getting to the endangered rhinos and elephants of African countries. This article is effective in getting both Johnson’s and VETPAW’s message to the world by giving basic information on their overall mission. It shows that people are willing to literally fight fire with fire—using guns against poachers who would do the same. Furthermore, the article shows that these veterans inspire fear in poachers as Johnson “has already noticed a decrease in poaching activity in her team’s immediate area because their presence is known.” The pictures used of Johnson also inspire different people, including women and soldiers who can carry on their work through this organization. Overall, this violent approach is one that I can get behind fully. I believe poachers to be of the most evil due to their indifference towards animals. VETPAW is the answer I never knew we needed. 

It’s apparent that nonviolent methods do work when fighting for the earth. However, the cases of violence show that the “deep ecological” approaches work as well. While they are more radical, they do create changes that are beneficial to the world. Regardless of method, activism is obviously what we need in the environmental movements of today. With more and more issues arising, the natural world is relying on environmental activists of every kind to save it. It’s time we all, whether one individual or a whole group, stood up for the earth before there is no earth to fight for anymore. 

Mindless Media over Matter: It’s Time for Humans to Stop Ignoring Animal Rights

By Cathy Doodnauth

Animal rights: two words that everyone tries not to think about. Why? Because when animals are being slaughtered, maimed, tortured, or abused, ignorance is bliss. I’ll admit it—sometimes I choose to ignore reading the articles or watching the news that I know will upset me. I guarantee that I am not the only one who does this. But the time for feigning ignorance is over. Animals are being abused more and more, for different reasons; whether it is torturous experimentation for the latest makeup products or the fattening up by the food industries. It’s time for humans to realize that we are not the only species on Earth. 

“News is, to a degree, event-driven.” Julia Corbett, author of Communicating Nature believes that media only reports the truth if it is relevant to that area. It is true that there is more coverage of animal cruelty today than there was in the past years. But as the media gets more and more focused on ridiculous ‘news’, there is less attention on the huge issue of animal cruelty. I intend to look through different media sources to see how the world truly views animal rights and animal cruelty. Through this research, we can get a better idea of how far we are from equality for the species that cannot ask for it themselves. Through this research, we can see how cruel humans have been under the radar, and if mainstream media, the media that reaches the world, covers it at all. 

Animal Liberation, a Philosophy

Some say that technology will surpass written books very soon. I disagree—just a few days ago I was unable to find a seat in Barnes and Noble to read a book. Books have been the main source of information for thousands of years, a tradition that isn’t dying just yet. 

While researching animal rights, I came across a book by Peter Singer that blew my mind. I highly recommend reading this book, animal lover or not. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement is a book first published in 1975 that is still relative today. It’s controversial; I’m not saying every idea Singer throws out is great. But I believe his ideas on the rights of animals are ideas that should be adopted by all. Beginning with the first chapter, Singer captures your attention and pushes you into seeing animal rights as it is—a movement. He compares the animal rights movement to that of the women’s rights movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Men thought women’s rights were ridiculous and unnecessary; this is exactly how people today view animal rights. Yet we realize now that of course women deserve the same rights as men and should have had equality from the start. If history does in fact repeat itself, shouldn’t this mean that animals too deserve equality? With this captivating opener, readers are already agreeing with Singer. Using this comparison makes this form of media effective for its readers. By relating to a previous movement that now seems obvious in its validity, readers see that animal rights might not be so radical after all.

In this specific sense, it is clear that books are beneficial when discussing animal rights. However, it is not the best form of media to get an idea out these days. Massive amounts of people do not even touch books unless absolutely necessary for work or school. Reading for fun is not as popular as it used to be. Therefore, while some books like Singer’s are a great resource, they are not open to the world. But they can be. If schools pushed for books other than novels to be read, maybe students would think differently and read more. As of right now though, books are not the source we need to advocate for animal rights.

#ANIMALRIGHTS

One of the more recent social media applications that has taken the world by storm would be Instagram. Disclosure: this application is not just hipster posts of Starbucks and ‘selfies’. If you look in the right places, you find photo blogs by environmental activists around the earth that advocate against many environmental issues. Search a hashtag, and you’ll find a world you never knew existed. 

I decided to search the app with the hashtag animal rights (#animalrights). The pictures I found and the stories I read through captions were moving. There are many activists who take to Instagram to enlighten their followers about the inhumane treatment of animals that occur right under nose. Most of the pictures I found pertained to the restricting of animals in our diet; A.K.A., they were vegan and vegetarian accounts that were against the cruelty farm animals face before being on a dinner plate. One account I found was very influential—the words in the captions severely made me rethink my current omnivorous diet, as did the pictures. One post from late March stood out to me. With their permission, I post this reiteration of the quote: 

“Standing up for children is expected, it is morally the right thing to do. Advocating for dogs, cats, and wild life is accepted, it is justifiable to quite a few. So why is speaking out for farm animals extreme, why is it pushing a ‘point-of-view’? Maybe it is time to change this perspective, because their lives matter too!” – One Voice for Animal Rights

The original poster of the photo had a caption that complimented the picture—they say that “suffering is suffering” and it is time to end speciesism.  This account has over four thousand followers, effectively showing a good amount of people the truth about animal rights. Because of this, and many other accounts with more followers and more points, I believe that Instagram is a very good media source. This app is a form of speech for many. This source portrays animal rights as it is—a necessary movement to stop the suffering of innocent animals, whether they are dogs or cows. Instagram is an app utilized by millions of people, so it can be beneficial for fighting for our goal of animal rights. 

France: a Foie Gras Faux Pas

There is an issue that has been raising controversy in France over the past few years: the disgusting practice of force feeding a duck or goose to make foie gras. I was completely horrified when I found an activist website, Stop Gavage, which explained foie gras and the methods taken to attain this French cuisine. This specific activist site was formed from a larger organization, the L214, in 2012.

The practice to make foie gras is one of the cruelest that I have come across while researching animal rights. The methods used are cruel and merciless, to produce a food for human consumption while blatantly disregarding the innocent birds. Foie Gras is translated into fat liver—it is the specially fattened liver of a goose or duck prepared as food. According to the manifesto area of the website, the bird is put through a painful practice:

“…force fed several times a day by means of a metal tube, 20-30 centimeters long, being thrust down his throat till it reaches the stomach. To force his body to produce foie gras, the bird must ingest a huge amount of corn in a few seconds. This results in the liver becoming almost ten times larger than its normal size, and the bird develops an illness, hepatic steatosis.”

Stop Gavage is a very effective activist website; the information is very clear and easy to find once translating the page into English. The practice is explained without any exclusion of information—the nitty gritty gore is present in the page, followed with graphic images. They also add a petition to be signed to attempt to stop gavage for foie gras, and to perhaps even ban foie gras. This kind of website is beneficial to those against animal cruelty and it shows that although France is the main producer, there are French people who want it completely stopped to save these innocent animals. 

Costa Rica: Punishable by Law

The world knows that Costa Rica is one of the leaders of sustainability today. Their eco-friendly lifestyle is an inspiration to countries and activists worldwide. An English newspaper (print and online) from Costa Rica, The Costa Rica News, featured an article discussing an amendment to their animal abuse bill. The bill essentially says that abusing animals is against Costa Rican law. This recent article, dated February 5, says that the amendment would give “one to three years for those who cause the death of an animal with or without a legitimate cause.” It also says that imprisonment is going to be the penalty for “poisoning, injuring, torturing, and assaulting animals,” as well as “organizing or running fights between animals of any kind.”

The Costa Rica News makes it clear that this is still just a proposition, but with over two thousand complaints of animal abuse, animal rights activists are hoping for the passing of the amendment. The article is short and to the point, with just the important information. It features no opinions, only fact from government sources. This adds to its effectiveness when discussing animal rights. Many who support the cause are biased, with special care and feelings towards animals. This article is different, which makes it all the more successful and effective. 

This newspaper article is filled with hope and restoration of faith in humanity. Costa Rica is obviously taking the steps to limiting (and thus, stopping) animal cruelty. They are on the road to animal rights. But without having researching this specific country and issue, I would not have known about this amendment. Newspapers that are specific to a country only inform the people of that country. It’s difficult to inform citizens of other places when the area it is given out to are minimal. This is the only issue that newspapers have. 

Brazil: Revista Cães & Gatos

Finding information from countries around the world can be difficult—especially if the articles and information is in a different language. Luckily, I was able to translate (through Google) a great article from a Brazilian magazine, Revista Cães & Gatos. This magazine has been around since 2008, in both print and online forms. 

We all know that animal testing is prevalent today; while it isn’t happening as much as it used to, it is still a huge issue we have when discussing animal rights. Many experiments are connected to cosmetics. This Brazilian magazine covers a win for animal rights activists in an article from January 23, 2014: the governor of São Paulo, Geraldo Alckmin, has banned “the use of animals in the development of cosmetics, perfumes, and toiletries” in his State. Sao Paulo is a state of Brazil that contained more cosmetic companies than other states, meaning this ban is truly great. Any offenders of the ban will have to pay over $50,000 USD. The article is very effective in its layout of information—it begins by catching the attention of the readers, then states the rules of the ban, and ends with hopeful statements. The reader is given information clearly and thoroughly. 

The magazine is published throughout Brazil, reaching the eyes of citizens in other states of the country. This makes it a very good source when discussing the rights of animals. Also, it is a magazine focused solely on animals, which makes it a great insight into the world of their rights. With its clear articles, anyone can pick up a copy and be introduced into the fight against animal cruelty. 

Canada: TEDx Talk

YouTube is one of the most valuable, unlimited resources we have today. With an almost infinity amount of videos, this site can teach about any and every subject known to man.  Of course, this includes animal rights. The specific video I found is from a TEDx Talk. Regular TED Talks are organized talks covering many different topics; TEDx Talk is specifically self-organized talks. Lesli Bisgould is an animal rights lawyer that was featured on one of the talks in May 2014. The talk she had was focused on animal rights, specifically in Canada. 

Bisgould uses a bold comparison in her talk. She discusses a hypothetical situation in which her daughter requires a heart transplant to live, which spurs Bisgould to ‘kidnap’ a healthy audience member to save her daughter. She makes the point that this act would not be “morally or legally justifiable.” She compares this to necessary suffering of animals for human amusement or as a food source. Her comparison is, in my opinion, the most effective part of her speech. What she says is relatable—we’ve all known someone, or a friend of a friend that has needed help in such a way. But is it truly justifiable? No. And it is not justifiable for animals either, even if they are of a different species.  Later on, her usage of harsh adjectives and imagery shows the audience just how horrible animals have it in her country. Imagery is always an effective means as the audience can picture the situations.

Out of all the media I have researched and discussed, I think YouTube is the most effective in portraying animal rights. With videos, the viewer can see the atrocities committed to innocent animals, as well as hear and see an impactful talk by someone fighting for animal rights. This video is one of thousands featuring the topic of animal rights, and this media outlet helps the world (not only a specific country) view them all. Because of this, YouTube is an amazing source that can bring animal rights to more areas around the world. 

My Thoughts

The goal animal rights activists want is really not that difficult to come by, nor is it the worst goal the world has ever had. Is it so bad to want rights for the defenseless animals we oppress? Do we have to be so cruel in our methods of using these animals that have helped us reach where we are now? The answer, even if some are hesitant or downright oblivious, is NO. It is time to stop ignoring the cattle that cry before being slaughtered with a hammer, the ducks with broken bills after gavage for French cuisine, and the fish that are being skinned alive at market. Their suffering is all at the hands of humans, and we need the media to portray this more than it is. We need to cover cruelty stories and penalties, as well as bans and wins for animals. We need a worldwide news source to showcase animal rights and animal cruelties that occur where we can’t see, and to show other countries it is possible.  And it all begins with consideration:

“The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment or different rights.” 

Peter Singer, Animal Liberation

With consideration, especially in the media, perhaps the animal rights movement will come to pass. Small changes all over the world (like bans on animal testing and penalties for abuse) are what humans need to do to help the animals win their rights. 

Without animals, we are nothing

By Cathy Doodnauth

Picture a life without your eggs and bacon in the morning. A life without that steak on your dinner plate. A life without your dog cuddled up next to you. Isn’t it hard to imagine? All normalcy of life is gone, left with emptiness. That’s what we’re heading towards if we don’t address the issue of animal rights and animal cruelty. If we find it so hard to live without them, whether on our plates or by our side, why do we treat them as if they’re less than us? If they inhabit the same world, I believe they deserve at least a few rights. Yet instead, they are being hunted unnecessarily; or captured for entertainment; or killed for the one fact that they are not useful to us in some ways. It would be different if we left the animals well enough alone. But no, we choose to include them into our cruel lifestyle.

Let’s rewind a bit. It’s no secret that I love animals. I’m that girl; the one that checks websites to ensure no dogs are killed in movies (via Does The Dog Die). The shocking thing is that animals are rarely hurt from even filmmaking these days. They’re most likely hurt in real life, through the ruthless cruelty of humans. The Cove is a documentary that brings the dolphin abuse in Taiji, Japan, to the eyes of the public. From the moment it began, I was swept into the story that Richard O’Barry tells. This is an investigative documentary; they want to find out who was killing of thousands of dolphins daily and why. What they find is disgusting. Thousands of dolphins are herded towards the coast, where they’re taken into captivity or killed for their meat. This film is so effective because it informs the public of what happens to the dolphins by showing it to them—not just writing about it. The audience sees what is happening with their own eyes through hidden cameras. And yet, they do not see it all. Dolphins that are unfavorable for captivity are taken to a different part of the cove and slaughtered. The slaughter, while filmed, did not make the final cut of the documentary. Leaving out this piece speaks louder than including it would have. It says that it was so horrific, so graphic, so inhumane and cruel that the creators had to leave it out. This exclusion is more effective—the audience is made aware that the act is too graphic for even a documentary. While researching The Cove, I came across an article that left me shaking: the director of the cove released the footage of the dolphin slaughter that did not make the film. Be careful; the footage is graphic and disturbing, to say in the least. I barely watched one video before tearing up and taking it off.

Humans treat animals as if they are dirt. It’s not all humans—there are some decent people out there, fighting for the rights of those who cannot fight for themselves. But many do not even bother. If there is ever one piece of literature to read, even if you view animals as below human capabilities, it’s a short story by the talented Alice Walker. Reading this particular short essay entitled “Am I Blue?” could potentially change the minds of those against animal rights. Featured in Living by the Word, a collection of short essays, Walker’s story of a neighboring horse is a very effective piece of literature. Her use of imagery is masterful—I was totally, unashamedly crying while reading it and I’m sure most readers were. One of my favorite paragraphs that show her skills of painting a picture in the reader’s mind:

“We were soon in the habit of feeding him apples, which he relished, especially because by the middle of the summer the meadow grasses—so green and succulent since January—had dried out from lack of rain, and Blue stumbled about munching the dried stalks half-heartedly. Sometimes he would stand very still just by the apple tree, and when one of us came out he would whinny, snort loudly, or stamp the ground. This meant, of course: I want an apple.”

Walker’s methods enable the readers to truly see Blue in this scene—you can see the lonely horse, in a dry brown meadow waiting by an apple tree for visitors. You can feel his sadness and his loneliness. Her imagery makes an impact on the audience; it makes them feel the emotions of a lonely horse. Walker’s words are anthropomorphic as well. Throughout the short story, she humanizes Blue in a way that makes the audience see how similar we really are. The strongest connections happen when she discusses Blue losing his partner, after having a companion for the first time in his lonely life:

“He galloped furiously, as if he were being ridden, around and around his five beautiful acres. He whinnied until he couldn’t. He tore at the ground with his hooves. He butted himself against his single shade tree. He looked always and always toward the road down which his partner had gone. And then, occasionally, when he came up for apples, or I took apples to him, he looked at me. It was a look so piercing, so full of grief, a look so human, I almost laughed (I felt too sad to cry) to think there are people who do not know that animals suffer.”

Including this piece made her work even more effective. The audience sees Blue acting as a human would in the same situation. It’s no secret that love-struck humans always go crazy after losing their love, their companion, their best friend. Blue acts the same—he is unbearably sad and he can’t do anything to get his partner back. When I read this, it broke my heart. Blue isn’t aware that his partner was taken away after he “did his job” for the human owners. He doesn’t know why she is gone, only that he can’t find her. And it’s driving him insane. Having this animal in such confusion and pain makes me cry; it most likely does this to anyone that reads it. But showing that Blue is capable of these emotions show that he is not that different from a human. And I think that message is the most important thing Walker could have included. Animals are not that different than us…so why do we hurt them like we do?

Relating to animals is not a new idea. Humans often use their traits to define themselves, with similes such as strong like a bull or quick as a fox. Julia Corbett, author of Communicating Nature, is able to touch on these relations in chapter seven. “…when we gaze at animals, we hold up a mirror to ourselves.” We act out cruelly against any species that is not human. But we know, deep inside, that we are not so different from the animals we oppress. We ignore this feeling, but as Corbett says, we still seem to need the animals around us. We still keep them around in zoos, in our homes, in the movies—but as long as humans ignore the instinct that we are the same, the injustices will continue. 

Linda Hogan is also able to discuss human similarities to animals in relation to the wild wolves of Ely, Minnesota. In her essay collection, Dwellings: A Spiritual History of the Living World, there is a short story called “Deify the Wolf.” Here, Hogan tells her story of a trip to see these wolves in their habitat. First off, the story feels very poetic; Hogan is able to set a mood of wonder with her imagery, and the audience sees themselves in the woods as well. “There are evergreens here, and thin, spare birch with cracks that look like dark eyes staring out of their white trunks.” It’s as if the audience is in those woods waiting for the wolves with her. She goes on to discuss the wolves being caught in leg traps, who just want to be free again. It is her that she really relates them to humans:
                 
“…the other names that give these wolves significance because they want to live and we can identify with that; these wounded wolves are like us, freedom and life mean something to them, something important, as it does to us.”

Like the wolves, humans want freedom and independence. We want to live our lives how we want, as do the wolves. When we are oppressed, we fight to be free and go after those who restricted us. But when the wolves do it, we don’t understand them. When they kill for revenge, we find it mindless. But aren’t they acting as we do? This point that Hogan makes is what makes the whole story effective. She makes it clear that we are being hypocritical; that we don’t let animals act by instinct, even though that is how we humans act.  We oppress them, but we still relate to them. As long as there are similarities, there needs to be respect. And right now, there is absolutely none.

While researching animal cruelty and hunting, I came across a jaw dropping fact about a favorite animal of mine: the inhumane hunting of polar bears is legal in Canada. Legal. As in, people are allowed to kill polar bears, an animal on the endangered species list! Just reading through this article was enough to set me fuming. It’s as if we want them to go extinct. Is it is not enough that the human’s increase in carbon output is ruining the habitat of these bears? Do we really need to allow hunting for their fur as well? Letting these animals be hunted will lead them to extinction faster than the melting ice caps would alone. Canada’s policy is completely ridiculous, and I urge anyone and everyone to sign this petition to get Canada to change this law! 

Many animals being abused are wild, innocent creatures hunted relentlessly. Sadly, the animals in captivity are being abused mercilessly as well.  One animal, hurt in both, has faced extinction repeatedly due to the hunting for its ivory tusks and the entertainment as a circus animal: the elephant. But there is still hope for this animal, and faith somewhat restored in humanity, all because of one fourteen year-old girl: Juliette West. In the documentary filming her journey to save the elephants, How I Became an Elephant, West sets an example for the rest of us. If one fourteen year-old girl can travel across the world, meet the famous Elephant Lady, and fight for the elephants, we can at least protest and sign petitions. This documentary is effective because it takes you behind the scenes of countries like this, where elephants are used for labor. To get things done, humans use the strength of elephants instead of their own. To use their strength, humans hit, chain, and pull the elephants inhumanely. Seeing the scenes exposed like this add to the effect of the film. Seeing a teenager fight for the elephants is definitely effective—it makes me want to hop on a flight and go save them all as well. These sweet, innocent mammals do not deserve the treatment they have been getting. I do not want to see them extinct just because humans are cruel to everything living in the world.

The way we have treated animals for the past few centuries is seriously horrifying. Even today, where there are some laws enacted to protect animals, there is abuse, cruelty, negligence, and slaughter still happening (like Canada’s policy on hunting polar bears.) But thankfully, not everything is so depressing. As we all know, circuses are well=known for the animals they train to do tricks for human amusement. Very recently, the Ringling Brothers have announced that they will no longer use elephants in their circuses! It is a small victory and a small step towards the future, but it is the beginning. This ban will definitely make Juliette West and the Elephant Lady happy. Hopefully, more and more organizations worldwide will ban the cruel usage of animals. This is the beginning. We can continue moving forward from this point on, at a rate faster than we have before. We can end hunting of all animals and save them from extinction. All we need is the union of all who still have a shred of humanity, and we could finally treat animals the way they deserve to be treated.