History lesson

I had never investigated the true source of human-animal relationships until now. I guess I forgot that it hasn't been like this forever. We have always been earthlings or "terrestrial animals (287)," but the boundaries have never been made clear, and this article blurred those lines even more. From Ecocriticism, chapter seven on animals, "the boundary between human and animal is arbitrary and, moreover, irrelevant, since we share with animals a capacity for suffering that only 'the hand of tyranny' could ignore (244)." The boundary is not arbitrary, it is just more complicated. There are many different distinctions, wild and domestic, mammals, amphibians, birds...etc. I found it very interesting how feelings towards animals have been influenced by church and state, and also how it has changed/advanced over time. I was surprised to learn how compassionate and aware the Quakers seemed to be towards animal-kind. I agree with Whitney in that awareness is key, but also with the statement in Reckoning with the Beast: "others [can] believe in kind treatment of brute animals, but hardly care about it." 

I think it is important to differentiate between those who are sympathetic, empathetic, or compassionate. Compassion and sympathy don't necessarily provoke people to take action. There is so much conditioned indifference in the world, throughout history, that people no longer want to be associated with actually feeling something. Animals have been utilized for survival, as a reliable source of food for humans for centuries. Pre-industrial people didn't victimize the animals for reasons of cruelty, but because their empathy had developed until Aristotle stated, "human beings and animals share a common sensitive goal, but that men have a rational soul denied to beasts." The physical nature of animals was the first indication of similarity and compassion by people, because some animalistic or bestial traits are undeniably apparent with humans.

When cruelty to animals, especially by children, was introduced it did not surprise me in the least. We still witness such things, in Toy Story, news articles, and other movies. It is still prevalent for people to want to assert dominance over other feeling beings. When people feel subservient, they want to make sure they can make someone else feel more subservient... thus animals are the literal and hypothetical easy 'scapegoat'. aka... Michael Vick... Claiming to not know any better, just as the educated class was first aware of the suffering and cruelty being inflicted on animals. So glad he donated money... alls well that ends well? I'm a bit skeptical. 

Lastly, I think that many pets have become the dominant household being. I can speak for my dog for sure, who has her own bed and is clearly the boss. I know that many animals are still abused, and exposed to harsh conditions and cruelty, but I think that the treatment of pets is on the up and up. Maybe it is the optimist in me, but I think that after going through the history of animal treatment it is a definite plausibility. 

Sources:
[1] Ritvo, Harriet. “Chapter Three: A Measure of Compassion.” The Animal Estate. Cambridge: Mass., 1987. 346-68. Print.
[2] Turner, James. “Introduction.” Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain, and Humanity in the Victorian Mind. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1980. 338-45. Print.