BLOG |
By Amanda Peltier "How would you feel if separated from your family, you were shipped to different cities in a cage no less, bound of life, with pain/pleasure techniques, and complete humility for performance under duress, a whip no less. If you were a tiger would you do it? Would you break away, think of escape and if desperate, kill and avow your infinite humiliation and guaranteed death? Do you do it now as a human?" This is an excerpt from Display Performance and Sport, an article we read in Animals and Society. These words wouldn't have hit home the way they did had I not been in the circumstance I find myself in. I have been incarcerated at Minnesota Correctional Facility- Shakopee since May of 2014. Had I taken this class outside of this setting, having never had the experience of imprisonment, I wouldn't have the power to reach the depth of empathy that I currently have for nonhuman animals.
Animals and Society is a course that explores the relationship between humans and nonhuman animals. Students learn vital perspectives in the field of human-animal studies and will explore a range of topics that are relevant to nonhuman animals in our society. Through dialogue and journaling, students will discover their own perspectives on nonhumans and how humans relate to them. Reading and writing assignments will also provide students the opportunity to question their own perspectives and the perspectives of others. Growing up in the country surrounded by woods, fields, and on a large lake, inspired a great love and respect of nature and nonhuman animals. When one coexists with nature, there is little fear of animals, including insects and snakes. They are a part of your everyday life. You learn from a young age the important roles that each has on the environment. Bees, birds, and butterflies pollinate, spiders eat mosquitoes and other pesky bugs, and humans use up natural resources. That we are as animal, as nonhuman animals. In my first year of college, long before my incarceration, I focused my studies on psychology and sociology, so this class wasn't a far stretch from my life or my interests. Taking this class in this environment, however, gives it a whole new experience. Focusing on my education now is easier and more important. I don't have to have a job, I can't attend social gatherings, and I have zero responsibilities. This is a very different scenario from my other college experiences. On the other hand, there were some class activities I wish I could have experienced, such as the six-day vegan challenge that our on-campus students do. The extreme concern of security complicated our ability to receive the full experience of the class, but we were able to be flexible and creative. Outside of the classroom, being a felon has a stigma of being a failure, irresponsible, and untrustworthy; thus, making my educational success additionally crucial. I know what it is to be viewed as an animal and to be treated like one. Being ripped from my family and the surroundings that brought me peace and comfort. Becoming bound of life, existing to not exist, and being publicly humiliated, gave me a greater understanding of what nonhuman animals think and feel. On the television series Yellowstone, a character says "People like to think we ain't animals, like we've evolved or some shit. You learn quickly in prison that we haven't. Forget lions, snakes, and shit; we are the worst kind of animals, the most evil." I don't think this line is just about inmates, it's about all humans. What other species on this planet cages and binds other animals, even their own species, without a second thought? As if that isn't enough, we find entertainment in it. Lions, tigers, and elephants in the circus bring us family entertainment. Zebras, primates, and giraffes help us educate our children in the zoo's while we are thoroughly entertained. Orcas, dolphins, and seals put on shows for us in aquariums. Other humans, their trauma, and poor choices bring us mesmerizing news stories and television shows. Is this what being evolved looks like? Animals, both human and nonhuman, are adaptable. They, or should I say we, will change and evolve to our surroundings. If you cage an animal they will be affected negatively. If you hunt an animal they will go into fight or flight mode. If you kill or capture an animal, many others will be affected. None are perfect. All have choices to make, some will be good and others will be bad choices. All animals have families, relationships, feelings, thoughts, and emotions. All animals are both predator and prey. We as humans fall into all these categories, just as do nonhuman animals. It is from a prison cell, or cage, that realization of this is heightened. It is there that you clearly see other perspectives and that there are so many better options. It is there that you fully embrace the helplessness of nonhuman animals. Where your helplessness and theirs become one. True empathy is easier to fully obtain when one has walked in the shoes of another. What are we really teaching our children about animals when they aren't in their natural habitat? What is so entertaining about watching other animals suffer? Why do we find enjoyment in others pain? Why do we feel it appropriate to cage, harm, or cast away those that make mistakes? Do we care what vulnerable situation animals were in, to end up in captivity, both human and nonhuman? Why don't we do something to change the way we treat animals? Being in captivity, helpless, with no voice puts me in a position to fully understand what nonhuman animals experience at the hands of humans. There is a minimal amount of stimulation in prison, so I try to take every opportunity I can to maintain my mental and emotional health. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to be able to receive continued education. This class felt as though I had a voice; if only for a semester and through the eyes of other species, I was heard. This opportunity through MSU Mankato, shows me that I matter. That there are people that are willing to take the first steps for change. That there is still hope in humanity. What steps will you take today to make a positive change? Author Bio: Amanda Peltier is a student at Minnesota State University Mankato, while incarcerated on a 30 year to life sentence at Minnesota Correctional Facility- Shakopee. Amanda, a mother of four, is from a small farming town in west central Minnesota, where she has enjoyed being with nature and nonhuman animals of all kinds. She has a passion for psychology and sociology, as well as, prison reform. By Students in Section 1, Fall 2021 For one assignment in class, participants read an article about how language can promote speciesism. They then chose idioms or phrases that involve animals and researched where they came from and discussed if these phrases are harmful to nonhuman animals. We have already posted once with some of the great findings of this project. We are at it again because this semester students chose more, unique terms we didn't cover in the last post. They phrases they chose to research are . Here are their findings! Kill Two Birds with One Stone Devon Heiling The idiom that I am going to be researching is “kill two bird with one stone”. The meaning behind the idiom, kill two birds with one stone, is to accomplish two objectives with one task. This is a very commonly used idiom throughout the United States and most people have at least heard of it. Kill two birds with one stone is a very old idiom that has been used for centuries. Some sources say that the idiom originates from Thomas Hobbes in a book called The Questions Concerning Liberty, Necessity and Chance, 1656. “T. H. thinks to kill two birds with one stone, and satisfie two Arguments with one answer, whereas in truth he satisfieth neither” is how Hobbes uses the quote in his book. Another source of this idiom was said to originate from The Proverbs of John Heywood, 1546. The phrase looks quite different than it does today but it still gets the same message across. In the book the idiom looks like this, “I will learne to stop two gaps with one bush”. The idiom looks quite different, but it generally sends the same message. The last source of this idiom is said to have originated from ancient Greece from the story of Daedalus and Icarus from Greek Mythology. Although there is no written proof that this quote happened many people believe that this is the original source. I would say that on the outside that the phrase, kill two birds with one stone, is harmful to other animals because it directly talks about killing birds. But, as we dig into the real meaning I think that this is just the most popular version of the phrase and that meaning of the phrase is simply accomplish two things with one task. There are many alternative phrases that mean the same thing and the one that I would choose is, “get two giggles from one tickle”. The Idiom. “Kill Two Birds with One Stone.” The Idioms, 2021, https://www.theidioms.com/kill-two-birds-with-one-stone/. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Michelangelo Maccabee So, I’ve decided to discuss one of my most loathed of animal related idioms, “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” I do not hear this one used much anymore in popular culture, but when I was younger, it was thrown around often enough for it to both stick in my head and be a personal annoyance. This phrase seems to have originated in English, with the meaning behind it being that of cynical sentiments surrounding the institution of marriage in that the ‘cow’ refers to a woman, and ‘milk’ refers to the benefits of being romantically or otherwise socially entangled with a woman. In essence, the idiom asks the question, “Why should one get married to a woman, when one can gain the material and emotional benefits of being in that relationship without the legal and social commitment of marriage?” As stated, the phrase is of English origin, however it is a variation on older phrases meaning roughly the same thing. In Australia, since at least the 19th century, the phrase has often been heard as “If you like milk, why buy a cow?”. If we take an even further look back, we can see the use of a version of this idiom in John Bunyan’s “The Life and Death of Mr Badman” written in 1680 that goes, “you don’t need to buy a cow merely because you like milk.” (Partridge, 353) The phrase, as it is presented, is antifeminist, and in my opinion, is a harmful phrase. One of the more interesting and vulgar iterations of the idiom that I have come across while doing research was encountered in the script for the movie Chasing Amy, when one of the characters offers, “Why buy the cow when you get the sex for free?” As you may be able to see, this further ratchets up the sentiment by twisting the idiom on its head, getting it wrong just enough to get it completely correct. The woman is seen as a cow to be milked. Her value comes from what she can offer, not who she is as a person. (Smith 1997) Is the phrase itself harmful to non-human animals? Perhaps there is a discussion to be had on whether or not one can or should be offended to be compared to a cow this way from an anti-speciesist prospective. Does the idiom fundamentally change if we removed animals from it altogether? “Why buy a book when you can join a library?” This version of the idiom was also popular in Australia, and dates back to at least 1920. (Partridge, 353) Honestly, I have never heard this version and I believe that it is probably because it lacks the hook of speciesism to get people agitated enough for it to be considered witty. Partridge, Eric. - Dictionary of Catch Phrases (Kindle Edition) 1975. Revised and Updated. Smith, Kevin. - Chasing Amy. (1997) New Line Cinema. Packed in like Sardines
Kate Melssen The idiom I chose for the Applied Project: Choose Your Words Wisely is “Packed in like Sardines”. I chose this phrase to research because I have heard it many times. I decided it would be very interesting to research. I found two different definitions for the idiom “Packed in like Sardines”. The first definition states “extremely crowded, as in I could barely breathe”. The second definition is “When many people are tightly packed together in a small space leaving little or no room for movement”. Researching the definitions of “Packed in like Sardines” idiom I realize some people might not understand what it actually means or how this idiom originated from. The history of this phrase comes from Russia in the 1800s, but it is not documented people used this phrase until 1911. The Russian’s original use of this idiom was “Packed like a herring's barrel. Which translates into English packed in like sardines”. The early use of this phrase described fish were backed into a herring barrel. Eventually this phrase was used as a visual to explain the packing of sardines. The history aspect of this idiom was used for describing how there was a lot of human overcrowding throughout history. In today’s society, it is used for overcrowding on public transportation. Many people talk about using public transportation and there are no places to sit and standing makes it overcrowded. People will refer to buses or subways as being packed like sardines and how it relates to over population. I think this phrase is harmful to animals because they are killing sardines and then putting them closer together in a tin can. The harmful part of this idiom is the actual killing of the animal and how people reference it to a dead animal. I don’t think people think there is any harm to this phrase since the sardines are dead. I also think this phrase is neutral to other animals because there are no other sayings that relate to this idiom. When you think of a lot of people in a room you think of sardines not, other animals. Another parallel phrase that relates to this is “packed in like pickles”. Packed in like pickles is a good alternative because it’s talking about a vegetable and not an animal. Pickles are grown from cucumbers. Referring to this saying instead of packed in like sardines can be less offensive and still mean the same thing. Pickles are overcrowded in their jar they come in but are technically not alive, so it is not as offensive. https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/what-does-packed-like-sardines-mean https://vegina.net/2012/07/09/liberate-your-language/ One of the class projects in the fall 2021 semester was to produce a children's book that addresses the treatment of nonhuman animals in a way that is not traditionally how we socialize children into thinking about other animals. Here is one of our favorite stories from this semester: A book called "There are Monsters on the Farm" by Anna Sohre. Have you ever wondered about what life would be like in someone else’s shoes, or fins? Robin did. She rewrote a memory of fishing from her childhood from the perspective of the fish.
The Hackensack River By Robin Becker The stream was muddy, full of silt and toxins, and the water moved sluggishly on its way to merge with the Hackensack River, after which it would dump into Newark Bay and, eventually, the Atlantic. The section the fish swam in that late summer afternoon was under a highway overpass, a concrete structure that cooled the water. It was a place to linger in the shadows, gathering the strength to swim into the sunlit algae and nibble at insects and plankton or take a bite out of passing fish. The fish could scatter her eggs like wildflower seeds in that creek and they would be fertilized. As long as she didn’t reach the Hackensack, she and her progeny would survive. It was 1978. Decades of urbanization and industrial waste, dams and the destruction of the meadowlands, had turned the Hackensack River into a turbid dead zone, an environment so toxic that only the hardiest of species could survive: the mud minnow. For now, though, the fish was safe, wiggling in the plants, her muscles strong as she swam against the mild current and out of the shade of the overpass. The sunlight warmed her dorsal fin and spot lit something shiny in the brackish water. She followed the silver object, moving just below the surface. She calculated its rate of speed and direction, deciding when to attack before it got away. But it disappeared, darting out of the stream like a dragonfly. The fish circled and settled near where the lure had been. Seconds later it was back in the water, inches away, and this time she bit as soon as it moved, chomped down like a pro, an apex predator. The hook embedded in the roof of her mouth and she was lifted out of the water as if she’d gained the ability to fly. But the air was warm and there was too much of it. There was no current caressing her sides, protecting her. She felt dizzy, heavy, and her mouth hurt. A man’s hand covered her gills, flattening her pectoral fins, making it impossible to move. The man jiggled the hook in her mouth, moved it back and forth so the barb cut into her. He cursed and grabbed his pliers. With one violent pull, he freed the hook and though she bled from her torn mouth, its absence was a relief. She lay in the man’s hand, head and tail spilling out of his palm. She struggled for oxygen, panting as only a fish can. The man spoke. “Got one, Sweet Pea,” he said. “A bass. Come check it out.” A child’s fingertip touched her scales and drew back. “Slimy,” she said. “And cold.” The fish was dropped into a bucket of water. She gulped some in and the water moved from her mouth to her gills, allowing oxygen to enter her bloodstream. The bucket was so small she couldn’t turn around and the water barely covered her back, but she was alive. She breathed steadily, getting her bearings. After a while, the girl walked up to the bucket and put her hand in. “Here fishy, fishy.” The girl reached out with her fingers. “Nice fishy.” The fish eyed those fingers. They were small and pale, the pinky not much bigger than a lily pad stem. The fish made its calculations and struck, biting with its broken mouth. The girl screamed and snatched her hand away. Blood ran down her pinky and she cradled it with her other hand. Her father ran over. “It bit me,” the girl cried, more in panic than pain. She hyperventilated a little, took huge gulps of air in between sobs as if she could not get enough. The father took his handkerchief from his pants’ pocket, knelt next to his daughter, and wrapped it around her finger. He kissed the little finger. “You’ll live,” he said. “You’ll be fine.” “I hate that fish,” the daughter said and let the feeling surge through her. Anger spread across her chest and was hot. “No one does that to my little girl,” the father said. “Watch.” He lifted the fish out of the bucket, poking his fingers in her gills. She flopped her tail. He placed her on the ground and stepped on her stomach with his boot. He took a knife from his belt and sawed through the scales and bones underneath the gills, cutting the pectoral fin in half. When he was done, she was in two parts, head and body. The delighted girl clapped her hands and jumped up and down. The father threw the fish back into the creek. Her head floated, one eye facing the sky, and made its way downstream to the Hackensack. In spring 2020 a group of faculty took a mini version of the Animals and Society course. Yes, faculty went back to class. How cool! For one assignment, participants read an article about how language can promote speciesism. They then chose idioms or phrases that involve animals and researched where they came from and discussed if these phrases are harmful to nonhuman animals. They phrases they chose to research are stool pigeon, you can lead a horse to water, it’s raining cats and dogs, kill two birds with one stone, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite, mutton dressed as lamb and hush puppies. Here are their findings! Stool Pigeon Kate Ford The idiom I chose to research is stool pigeon. According to the book, I’ve got Goose Pimples by Marvin Vanoni, stool pigeon was being used as 1840 to mean someone in the pay of the police spying on criminal activities. That is still what it means today, someone who tattles to the police. The history behind this phrase really does have to do with pigeons and stools. Pigeon was a prized delicacy in Britain, however hunting them with guns often damaged the meat. The preferred method of catching them then was with a snare. The hunter would sit on a stool with his snare and a tame pigeon. Often, the pigeon was tied to the stool to prevent it from flying off. Free-living pigeons would be lured into captivity by the “stool pigeon”. (Vanoni 1989) This phrase certainly has a negative connotation, however I’m not sure that it is greatly damaging to pigeons. It goes against most people’s sense of honesty, the stool pigeon of the past and today presenting themselves as something they are not. It also grates against honor, even among thieves. I think simply calling someone an informant is a good way to convey the same meaning without the potential for damage to the pigeon. Vanoni, M. (1989) I’ve got goose pimples: Our great expressions and how they came to be. William Morrow and Company, Inc. You Can Lead a Horse to Water Charlie Krois As a professor, I find myself using the phrase, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink” quite often. Generally, this idiom means you can provide someone (in my case, students) resources and opportunities to help them (study guides, textbooks, practice problems), but you cannot force them to use it. In a broader sense, I use it personally to imply, “I can only do much” or “What more can I do?” This idiom can be traced back to the 12th century, with a phrase in the book Old English Homilies: “Hwa is thet mei thet hors wettrien the him-self nule drinken. 1” This can be translated in two ways, either “Who can give water to the horse that will not drink of [their] own accord?” which closely resembles the current idiom, or “Who is he that may water the horse and not drink himself?” which has a slightly different meaning. 1 Referencing the idiom’s appearance in Homilies, some suggest the phrase may be the oldest proverb that originated in English still in use today. 2,3 That is, other, older proverbs are translations from other sources.3 The phrase appears more clearly in the 16th century, written as “A man may well bring a horse to the water, but he can not make hym drynke without he will” in the book A Dialogue Conteinyng The Nomber in effect of all the Prouerbes in the English Tongue.1 Authors in the 18th and 19th century changed the wording such that “twenty” or “a thousand” could not make the horse drink.4 The phrase is believed to have adopted its more modern form after writer Dorothy Parker used a play on it, quipping “You can lead a horticulture [whore to culture], but you can’t make her think.3,5” If one wanted to replace the phrase to remove the animal reference, I would not suggest Dorothy Parker’s version. One possible replacement, from Joanne Stepaniak, is “You can sow fertile seeds, but you can’t make them sprout.” Personally, I find her suggestion a little awkward, and would adjust it to “You can water your seeds, but can’t make them grow.” That said, there might be something lost from removing the horse: agency. The horse can choose to drink or not, a plant has far less choice about whether it grows. In fact, if you are watering your plant and it is not growing, you are probably doing something else wrong; there is more you can do. This begs the question; do we need to remove the horse? Naïvely, one could suppose stumbling upon a thirsty horse and, through knowledge of the terrain, altruistically leading them to a nearby pond. Realistically, we care about the horse in the idiom because imagine owning them and using them for work or transportation. We have made the horse thirsty through work (for us), and we need the horse to drink so we might get back to the task at hand. Animal ownership may be problematic outright to some. To me, the problem lies in how that horse is treated: is it overworked, it is it cared for, does it get food, shelter, and medical attention when needed? If we are good stewards of horse, we care about whether it drinks. 1. https://knowyourphrase.com/you-can-lead-a-horse-to-water 2. https://www.theidioms.com/you-can-lead-a-horse-to-water-but-you-cant-make-him-drink/ 3. https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/you-can-lead-a-horse-to-water.html 4. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/you+can+lead+a+horse+to+water%2C+but+you+can %27t+make+it+drink 5. https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/418100.html It’s Raining Cats and Dogs Jennifer Turner Many cultures and languages use idioms to describe notable weather. “It’s raining cats and dogs” is a phrase many English speakers use to describe unbelievably or unusually heavy rainfall. The first known use of the phrase appears in a 1653 play by Richard Brome in which he states, “It shall rain...dogs and polecats.” Although the first known usage is well-documented, the origin of the idiom is a mystery. One common explanation is that the phrase developed from foreign terms that are similar in sound. Cata doxa and katadoupoi are Greek words that mean “contrary to experience or belief” and “to rain waterfalls,” respectively. Alternatively, “raining cats and dogs” may be a reference to Norse mythology’s god of storms, Odin, who was often depicted with dogs. It could also refer to witches, who were often associated with cats and the ability to create rainfall. Additional explanations include the hypothesis that it is a reference to frogs and fish being sucked up and then deposited by waterspouts (Lloyd, 2019) or that dogs and cats were washed off rooftop perches during heavy rains. Both hypotheses are almost certainly untrue. However, it is possible heavy rains carried debris, including the remains of dead animals, through the streets in early times when sanitation systems were not well- developed. At first glance, “it’s raining cats and dogs” seems harmless to other animals. However, heavy, drenching rainfall is generally viewed as a negative occurrence. Even in areas experiencing droughts, it is preferable to get gradual rains, not a heavy dump of water. Using “it’s raining cats and dogs” to describe negative weather conditions adds a negative connotation to these animals reputations. It could reinforce the idea that they are pests, especially in areas with large free-ranging dog or cat populations, or at the very least it could place them just one step removed from pests. Instead of associating dogs and cats with heavy, drenching rains, “it's raining noodles and sauce!” may be a more appropriate idiom. Spaghetti noodles resemble the worms that emerge during rainfall and sauce is wet. Further, many people can agree there are reasonable amounts of noodles and sauce that can be consumed at one time—and more than this can be very uncomfortable! References Hurst, H. (2020, Feb 11). Is it really raining cats and dogs? The history behind the idioms we use everyday. University Wire. http://ezproxy.mnsu.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest- com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu/wire-feeds/is-really-raining-cats-dogs-history-behind-idioms/ docview/2353233406/se-2?accountid=12259 Lloyd, C. (2019, Aug 01). Why do we say 'it is raining cats and dogs'? Northern Echo. http://ezproxy.mnsu.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu/ newspapers/why-do-we-say-is-raining-cats-dogs/docview/2267576817/se-2? accountid=12259 Zoltán, I.G. (2013). “It’s raining cats and dogs” – weather in English idioms. Studia Universitatis Petru Maior – Philologia, 14, 270. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu/login.aspx? direct=true&db=cms&AN=90240453 Kill Two Birds with One Stone Josh Berkenpas For this assignment, I investigated the idiom “kill two birds with one stone.” I found that one of the earliest recorded uses of the phrase dates to the mid-17th century in England. This source recounts how the idea is also present in Greek mythology and the story of Daedalus and Icarus who kill two birds with one stone to get the necessary feathers to build their legendary wings.1 When people use this phrase typically, they mean to signify the desirability of being able to complete multiple tasks with a single action. As someone who never seems to have enough time to complete all my work, I find the idea of finding ways to achieve my goals more efficiently an attractive prospect. I was recently talking to other faculty in another professional development class about my reluctance to use the phrase since it involves violence toward non-human animals. Another faculty member mentioned that they like to use the phrase “two birds from one egg.” I told them that I would have to adopt this saying as well. I find it interesting to think about how far back these idioms go in the history of human language. Etymology looks at first recorded use in writing, but these terms have obviously been in circulation much longer. Have idioms which involve literal violence toward non-human animals (“there’s more than one way to skin a cat” also comes to mind) contributed to the domination and oppression of non-human animals over time? Moreover, has this type of thinking and speaking contributed to the domination and oppression of human beings over time? As the author of “Liberate Your Language” points out, the answer to both questions is likely “yes.” Herzog also has an interesting discussion of the way that we use euphemisms for meat to distance ourselves from the act or even knowledge about the killing of non-human animals for the purpose of human consumption (2010, 45). In my view, this way of speaking and thinking contributes to a strategy on behalf of industrial agriculture to create this distance and to conceal the inhumane practices to which non- human animals are subject. The use of idioms and other language that normalizes violence toward non-human animals allows most people to view them as simply “animals” which are inferior to human beings and therefore not deserving of dignity and respect. 1 https://www.theidioms.com/kill-two-birds-with-one-stone/#:~:text=It%20is%20to%20be%20believed,birds %20and%20make%20the%20wings. Herzog, Hal. 2010. Some We love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat. Sleep Tight, Don’t Let the Bed Bugs Bite Rob Sleezer The idiom “sleep tight, don’t let the bed bugs bite” is a common phrase used when tucking children into bed. The phrase intends to convey a sentiment of sleeping well and safe. People say the phrase when send others off to bed. Although the origin is murky people often say it when wrapping children in their blankets just before turning off the lights. Similar phrases appeared in the 1880s but the first known appearance of exact phrase is in What They Say in New England: A Book of Signs, Sayings, and Superstitions compiled by Clifton Johnson and published in 1897 [1]. In the 1950s DDT dramatically reduced the prevalence of Bed Bugs (Cimex lectularius) and they virtually disappeared from American life [2][3]. As a result generations grew up without exposure to Bed Bugs and many, like myself, believed the saying referenced fictional creatures. However starting in the 1980’s and 90’s Bed Bugs the number of Bed Bug infestations increased substantially [3]. In 2011 they were sufficiently prevalent that most continuing education events for pest management professionals discussed the issue [4]. I suspect that this phrase did very little to damage Bed Bugs themselves. Although Bed Bugs have never been shown to vector any diseases or pathogens they were considered a pest that needed control long before this idiom appeared. From the 1860s and 1870s we have “Good night, sleep tight, wake up bright in the morning light, to do what’s right, with all your might” [5] as a possible replacement term. [1] Caroline Bologna (2018) Here’s Why People Say ‘Don’t Let The Bedbugs Bite’, Huffington Post, Culture & Arts, January 23, 2018. [2] Brooke Borel (2015) Infested How the Bed Bug Infiltrated Our Bedrooms and Took Over the World, University of Chicago Press. [3] Emily Monosson (2015) Unnatural Selection: How we Are Changing Life, Gene by Gene, Island Press, Washington, DC. [4] Pest Management Professional (2011) Legal. (I lost the reference when I let the session time out. If needed I can retrieve it but thought I would move on for the sake of time given the context) [5] Ernest Small (2019) In defence of the world’s most reviled invertebrate ‘bugs’, Biodiversity, 20:4, 168-221, DOI: 10.1080/14888386.2019.1663636 Mutton Dressed as Lamb Emily Boyd Words are powerful, and they impact the ways in which we think about power, domination, and inequality in society. As discussed by vegan blogger Vegina (2012) in a blog post entitled “Liberate your Language,” when we continue to use words and phrases that paint others in harmful or stereotypical ways, we reinscribe or reproduce the inequalities initially inflicted through phrasing. Vegina suggests that several of the ways this inequality is reproduced is through use of pronouns (‘that dog’ instead of Charlie); mass terms (emphasizing animals as things or objects instead of as people or individuals); insults (derogatory or devalued human behaviors likened to the behavior of animals); and inaccurate language (animals are ‘processed’ instead of slaughtered). Another way inequality towards animals is reproduced is through the use of idioms or colloquial phrases that hold moral or practical value—for example, “kill two birds with one stone” is a phrase suggests multitasking is a superior practice, but uses imagery of the death of birds to make the point. In this paper, I examine two popular idioms that relate to animals, the historical uses and base of the phrases, as well as how the sayings reinforce inequality among human animals as well as species. I then turn to a discussion of the term “companion animal” and what it signifies about animal and human relationships. The first idiom I researched was the phrase “mutton dressed as lamb”. I knew that mutton was a slang term for the meat derived from lamb, but I previously thought it was a particular cut or part of the animal, and not simply a phrase that connotated processed lamb meat that was ready for human consumption. According to The Phrase Finder (2021) website, it denotes “a put-down aimed at an ageing woman who is dressed or made up of someone much younger”—in this case, the mutton (aging woman) is presenting herself as something she is not (young, or a ‘lamb’). Right away, I considered the intersectionality of speciesist language —not only are lambs being discussed as objects, but women are also likened to animals in a derogatory way, insinuating that women are ‘tricky’ or trying to deceive potential suitors. Phrase Finder (2021) continues: The 'dressing' of food was previously the term for the preparation of the item for cooking. The implication in 'dressed as lamb' is that the woman had prepared herself for a romantic encounter. 'Mutton dressed as lamb' was originally a disparaging description of a woman aiming to deceive men into believing she was younger than she really was - it being an economic necessity for a woman to marry while still of childbearing age. Its current usage, while still disparaging, is of a woman who is apparently deluded and thinks herself attractive in clothes usually worn by much those much younger - the motivation having changed from notions of marriageability to those of self-esteem. This “new” version is supposedly more politically correct because it paints women as ‘merely’ lacking self-confidence instead of marred in inequalities like marriageability and childbearing potential which had previously compelled her to ‘disguise’ herself. I see many forms of inequality reproduced here: gender inequality—in terms of women’s need to be ‘marriageable’ or attractive; us versus them mentality—in terms of women and animals being grouped together against ‘regular’ humans (men); insults that link perceived negative human behaviors with that of animals—in terms of women’s seduction being linked to animal dressing or ‘false advertising’ and inaccurate language—lambs are animals and not objects, and ‘mutton’ is not ‘dressed as’ a lamb or anything else when slaughtered. I think this phrase is harmful to both non-human and human animals, and especially women. Hush Puppies Emily Boyd Another phrase I was interested in was the origin of the term “hush puppies” for small bite sized pieces of cornbread that are deep-fried (and incredibly delicious!). I had read somewhere that this term was created because of usage of the food item—specifically, that enslaved people in the American South would throw these chunks of cornbread to dogs who might alert plantation owners of ‘nefarious’ behaviors like attempting to flee their captors—so they were called ‘hush puppies’ to keep dogs quiet. I myself ‘cleaned up’ some of the language used here already—‘enslaved people’ instead of Slaves (one’s political status or freedom is not the same as an identity category); viewing enslaved people as running as a negative thing has also been called into question in my sentences above. The website Phrase Finder (2021) suggests two different origins of the phrase: If Confederate soldiers detected Yankee soldiers approaching, they would quiet their barking dogs by throwing them the fried cornmeal balls. In the southern USA, salamanders were called "water dogs" or "water puppies". These were eaten as part of poor people's diet - deep-fried with cornmeal. They were given the name hush puppies as eating such humble food wasn't something people wanted to discuss. In the first suggested history, language usage also has important effects. The claim that “soldiers” threw the hush puppies depicts people who are serving their country; they are patriots, loyalists. The southern soldiers in this scenario would ‘treat’ their dogs to hush puppies in order to remain concealed or hidden—a version of events that is incredibly whitewashed from the lore I previously had heard. Enslaved people are entirely removed from this narrative, and hushing dogs by giving them treats in service of hiding one’s location paints Confederates as ‘smart’ or ‘tactical’ instead of as captors fighting a war to continue to allow human beings to own other humans. The second suggestion of the origin of the phrase suggests that “hush puppies” were a slang term for salamanders that had been deep-fried. This denotes speciesism, of course, as humans are depicted as eating non-human animals. It also denotes the tough times that would cause someone to eat a salamander as something not related to ethnicity or power relations at all—they are eaten by “poor people”—not enslaved people, with no mention of their race or ethnic background. Another item mentioned was the use of the term “hush puppies” to refer to a brand of clothing. Supposedly, a salesman who appreciated the food and drew associations to tired feet being called ‘barking dogs’ decided that ‘hush puppy’ would be a good brand name for footwear. By Mace Walgrave New York City is known for their iconic horse drawn carriages that are available to the public. They can be seen on the streets by passersby, in movies and on TV shows, and used as props on advertisements and brochures. I am here, in this blog, to say that this activity needs to be ban from the city of New York and any other metropolitan area that subjectifies any animals to this kind of trauma and stress. Close your eyes and think of an ideal environment for a horse. I’ll bet what came to mind was a spacious green pasture or a big barn full of yellow hay. What you probably didn’t imagine was a vast concrete jungle with some of the busiest streets in the world full.
Carriage horses of NYC are in the constant company of startling noises, thousands of people, vehicles, cyclists, strange smells, and, in most cases, mistreatment by the hands of their “caretaker”. According to nyclass.org, a horse needs considered healthy when they have daily access daily access to open fields and/or pastures where they can freely graze, exercise, roll around, and interact with other horses. Veterinarians agree that these activities are needed for a horse to live a healthy life. The working horses of New York are completely stripped of these basic needs and necessities. Horse carriages thrive in NYC because the locals, and tourists alike, view them as an iconic product to the city. Below is a passage found in J.G. Merriam’s article that exposes the unnatural conditions that NYC’s carriage horses live in. To tourists visiting the buzzing city, carriage horses are breathtaking and unfamiliar. To NYC natives, such as cab drivers and commercial vehicles operators, carriage horses are seen as obstacles and a nuisance that lead to stopped or slowed traffic and hinderances to their tight, rushed schedules. “To vacationers, it hearkens back to a bucolic era when the pace was slower and signals the presence of a historic district or a revitalized downtown. To harried bus or truck drivers, it (they) is (are) an obstacle to be passed quickly; a hinderance to a regular schedule. To passing horsemen, it may pique interest but also wonderment as in ‘why on earth is it (he/she) here?” (J.G Merriam) It is a dangerous place for horses when they are placed under the same category as erratic drivers, construction, and potholes. By Lidia Vassar As a human, I enjoy different colors and patterns. This includes different colors and patterns of nonhuman animals. However, I will never prioritize the appearance of nonhuman animal over its health. When it comes to companion animals, I have found that people are prone to exploitation, even when they love their companions dearly. This paper will go into depth on why I believe that selectively breeding for aesthetics without considerations for health should be banned.
Reptiles in the pet trade, like most other nonhuman animals kept as companions, come in a variety of colors. As with all selective breeding, unfortunate side effects are a reality. There are times, like in the case of the spider ball pythonand the enigma leopard gecko, however, that these side effects can severely alter the individual’s quality of life. The breeding of reptile morphs who suffer from predictable and preventable issues, whether they are neurological or more physical in nature, is not ethical and should not be treated as a normalcy of the reptile breeding industry. By Morgan Wendt Across the United States, more than 50 million homes choose dogs as their companion animals, according to a survey conducted by the American Pet Products Association. In addition to providing exercise and stimulation, taking the dog for a walk can help decrease destructive behaviors, help with weight loss, and improve socialization. Furthermore, walking can help caretakers feel closer to their animals and can improve the physical and mental health of humans. Taking the dog for a walk, however, may not be as straightforward as it seems. Retractable leashes are an option often promoted in pet stores as easy to use and providing the most freedom to your dog, but can actually cause harm to both animals and humans, and should be banned from use.
So, what exactly is a retractable leash, and how is it different from a regular one? A standard leash is exactly what you think of when you imagine a dog leash. It’s a woven cord that’s a few inches wide and 6-12 feet long, usually with a metal clasp on one end to attach to a collar, and a loop at the other end that serves as a handle for the caretaker to control the leash. A retractable leash is usually a thin cord, just a few centimeters in diameter, that is attached to a reeling mechanism. This mechanism automatically retracts when there is no tension on it, hence the name “retractable leash”. These mechanisms also come with two buttons on the handle, one to lock the mechanism so the leash no longer retracts and the pet can stay on the current length of leash, and another button to release the lock. These leashes can vary in length, but can be anywhere from 12 to 30 feet. By Nicki Jecha When I was a kid, I would beg my mom to go to the pet store so I could look at all of the nonhuman animals there. I would see all of the animals and think to myself, “wow they are so cute. I want all of them”. I still do that sometimes, but now when I do that, I think about the commitment it takes to have these animals. Most people do not take time to research the care that goes into keeping companion animals, specifically reptiles. This leads to a poor quality of life for the animals. The popularity of exotic animals is high enough that the exotic animal trade is still prevalent, and most reptiles are taken from the wild where they have a limited chance of surviving. This is why I think exotic reptiles should not be sold in pet stores.
Before talking about the logistics of why some exotic reptiles should not be sold as companion animals, let’s define what “exotic” means. According to Lianne McLeod, DVM, an exotic companion animal can be loosely defined as companion animal that is not a dog, cat, or farm animal. It is a companion animal you would not normally think of in a household. The key word in this definition is “loosely”. Defining a companion animal as exotic or not depends on the context you want to describe the animal in. Some people may not think of a bearded dragon when naming popular companion animals, so it would be considered exotic (the bearded dragon is the lizard in the picture above). Yet it is a common reptile to see in a pet store. I have more personal knowledge about exotic companion animals in pet stores because I work at a chain pet store. I spend a lot of time educating people on the care of reptiles because a lot of reptiles have more requirements than small animals (hamsters, guinea pigs, etc.). Reptiles all have different heat and humidity requirements we as caretakers have to adhere to, and a lot of people don’t know that. There are reptile enthusiasts that want to give those animals the best life, but that is not necessarily the target audience of a chain pet store. Lack of knowledge is a big component in the neglection of reptiles. The assumption is that you can walk into a pet store, buy a nonhuman animal you think looks cool, and then walk out with this animal and have he/she live a full life. This is not the case with reptiles. There are many common issues associated with reptile neglect including metabolic bone disease due poor diet, inappropriate temperatures and humidity, which can cause thermal stress, and inappropriate handling. By Reed Seifert Let’s start with a quick narrative to set the scene- the story of Rudy and Louie. As a child I was desperate to bring a furry companion into my life, so at the tender age of 10 I lobbied my parents relentlessly to get a dog. I used all the plays in the play book and pulled every trick from my sleeve, and eventually they caved. I was thrilled to have gotten my way, however my mother and father agreed on one condition- the dog was to be kept in a kennel in the garage. Unfazed by this stipulation we bought our first dog, a Yellow Lab bred specifically for hunting and named him Rudy. My life was complete with the new addition to the family, or so I thought. When Rudy became too large to keep in the house my parents enacted their one condition, and bought a 9’ x 6’ kennel for the garage.
Five years later my younger sister began to press our parents for her own dog. She must have taken notes on my tactics, because she too was successful. Her breed of choice was a cute little white Cavachon with big black eyes and a round face. The fur ball named Louie quickly earned the nickname “Lou-cifer” for his constant carpet-pooping, carpet-peeing, and (worst of all) sock-eating tendencies. Despite all the mayhem and destruction Louie brought to our house, he received the keys to the castle. And so I thought, “Why was Rudy locked in a 50 Square foot kennel eating kibble, while Louie lived in our 2,000 Square foot house eating home cooked dog food?” This is the question prompted my research into how socially constructed roles for dogs have led to such a radical disparity in living conditions. |
ABOUT
This is a website about nonhuman animals, written by human animals taking a Society and Animals class at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|