Longhorn's querencia

Like the Texas Longhorn I am “a home lover” (820). However, unlike the Longhorn, I don’t know where home is.

Is it in the city that houses nineteen years of memories, three of my best friends, and all sorts of comfort elements?

The Houston skyline (especially at night) is probably the only physical thing I loved about the city.

Or is it the city I will live in for the next four years? The one that already has a semester of memories, the one that promises independence and freedom?

I love Austin. It's such a vibrant city, with so much to do. I find myself attached to a lot of things in the city.

According to the vaquero language, “querencia… (is) the place where an animal is born or to which he shows strong attachment” (820). “Many animals…” - including humans I’m sure - “… have strong attachments to their accustomed home.” (820)

Sancho, the homebody Longhorn on the Kerr’s ranch, “stayed at home and drank at the well” when “it rained and other cattle drifted off…” (823). He did this because he loved certain elements of the Mexican Gulf, like “the Mexican peppers on the Esperanza” (825).

Based Sancho’s story Houston should be my home. However, when I visit Houston, I can’t wait to be back in Austin. Perhaps it’s because when I was in Houston, I lived in seven different apartments. My sense of home wasn’t grounded in a physical location- I wasn’t like Sancho who’s “bed ground was near a certain mesquite tree just outside the gate” (823)- it was established in relationships I had built.

These are some of my close friends from high school. My memories of Houston are of time spent with people like them (physical locations hardly ever register).

But if querencia also means a strong attachment to a certain location then perhaps Austin, though I’ve only lived here for four months, will always be my home. So far my time here hasn’t been about the people I’ve met, rather it’s been about personal development- exploring my independence and my limits as a college freshman. When I think of my time in Austin some physical location or memory comes to mind first, and the people involved come as a secondary thought. Perhaps this is the defining element of “home”- missing things, as opposed to people.

Dobie DB

I found the most striking aspects of Dobie’s “The Mustangs” were his descriptions. They painted in my head a mirror image of what I had always imagined- “heads tossing high, nostrils dilated, the wild and free stood in arrested animation.” (847)

[1] Dobie also describes Mustangs as being curious and mischievous- “their playfulness rather than their fears seemed to be excited by our appearance.” (849)

More importantly though, they reminded me of the missing elements in my life…

You see, Mustangs carry “a life and a spirit” (848) that I envy. They’re free, independent, and excitable- constantly eluding captors. I admire these qualities, because I’ve lost them all. When I was younger I used to be independent; now I’m constantly seeking affirmation from materialistic things that do not matter. I used to be excitable, but now disappointment and frustration dominate my moods. However, the worst thing is I’ve lost my spirit. I’m encountering a familiar tedium (some would call it reality) as an adult that restricts me to a bubble, and deprives me of the necessary freedom to simply explore my character and live. As Dobie says, “the process of breaking often broke the” spirit (847).

[2] In this photo “two cowboys are rounding up a Mustang.” It reminds me of Dobie’s description- “…trembling with fear before his captor, bruised from fals by restrictive rope, made submissive by choking, clogs, cuts and starvation, he had lost what made him so beautiful and free.” (846) Again, I am tempted to draw a parallel. Man has similar captors- things and ideas that are fishing for a chance to trap him.

However, he also says, “only by blotting out the present can one now see those wild horses of the prairies.” (848) Perhaps what he means by this is, in order to achieve a Mustang’s freedom and spirit, we must disassociate ourselves with “reality/tedium” (what’s the best way to get an A? What career makes the most money? How can I get a letter of recommendation? What’s the best way to begin building my grad school transcript?), and remember back to simpler days. What brought us the most joy as children? What was our favorite activity?

[1] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx

[2] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx

Dobie DB RD

DIASCLAIMER: I still need to add multimedia, I know. Also, might be some elaboration on my points… everything makes sense to me right now (lack of sleep does something to your cognitive abilities?), but that might change tomorrow. I just wanted to get something done, since I won’t have much time to work on it Wednesday. Sorry if this poses as any inconvenience. :\

I found the most striking aspects of Dobie’s “The Mustangs” were his descriptions. They painted in my head a mirror image of what I had always imagined- “heads tossing high, nostrils dilated, the wild and free stood in arrested animation.” (847)

More importantly though, they reminded me of the missing elements in my life.

You see, Mustangs carry “a life and a spirit” (848) that I envy. They’re free, independent, and excitable- constantly eluding captors. I admire these qualities, because I’ve lost them all. When I was younger I used to be independent; now I’m constantly seeking affirmation from materialistic things that do not matter. I used to be excitable, but now disappointment and frustration dominate my moods. However, the worst thing is I’ve lost my spirit. I’m encountering a familiar tedium (some would call it reality) as an adult that restricts me to a bubble, and deprives me of the necessary freedom to simply explore my character and live. As Dobie says, “the process of breaking often broke the” spirit (847).

However, he also says, “only by blotting out the present can one now see those wild horses of the prairies.” (848) Perhaps what he means by this is, in order to achieve a Mustang’s freedom and spirit, we must disassociate ourselves with “reality/tedium” (what’s the best way to get an A? What career makes the most money? How can I get a letter of recommendation? What’s the best way to begin building my grad school transcript?), and remember back to simpler days. What brought us the most joy as children? What was our favorite activity?

I’ve encountered this theme multiple times in this class, but perhaps since Mustangs are “the most inspiring creature ever to print foot on the grasses of America” (486) I’ll finally listen?

DB

I can’t get over the argument that humans are, in some form or another, superior to animals. Norma tells John that a squirrel’s “world view comprises acorns and trees and weather and cats and dogs and automobiles… There’s no more.” (92)

[1] Norma says squirrels’ would view also includes attracting squirrels of another sex.

This point seems incredibly simplistic and arrogant.

To begin with every earthling has its own niche. They contribute to other species’ existences, who, in turn, contribute to others. Whether or not we feel various species’ roles in these commensalistic relationships are substandard, we should still respect them. We should respect their lives, their contribution to the global ecosystem, and, most importantly, their role as the main course of our meals.

[2] Every life form on Earth is dependent on another life form. Humans are probably the only species on the Earth who never give back; the only species who bites the hand that feeds them.

In previous class discussions people have brought up the point that, in the wild, a predator kills its prey gruesomely- we’re just doing the same thing; it’s natural. I don’t believe, under any circumstances, can one compare these two situations. When a lion takes down a gazelle, it snaps the neck. It doesn’t chew off the horns and tail; it doesn’t make a point of letting it bleed slowly so it’ll taste better. There are certain things we do at food mills that are unacceptable, and, while the killing of animals is “necessary” for our survival, our methods aren’t. There is no reason animals’ “Will (should) stand stunned and numb” (763H) from months of living in revolting conditions.

As Smuts says in his essay, “when a human being relates to an individual nonhuman being as an anonymous object, rather than as a being with its own subjectivity, it is the human, and not the other animal, who relinquishes personhood.” (759) How can we claim moral and intellectual superiority when, in completely disregarding other species’ lives, we employ such inhuman methods of killing?

Moreover (and here I get a bit radical), how can we be a superior species when we enable and condone so much destruction in the world? I don’t see other species trafficking their young and starting wars (however primordial they would be). We are selfish beings that will not exercise a bit of self restraint. One may argue that animals are selfish as well, and I’d agree. However, at least animals know when to stop.

To get back to my original point, we owe animals our respect. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t kill them for food- it simply means that we should be compassionate about it. We don’t need “matadors or deer hunters armed with bows and arrows” to provide the world with its main protein source- “you do not feed four billion people” this way. (97) We need some major overhauls- we need regulation and standards. I don’t understand how people can spout “this is the way the world is” when we are capable of changing our current standards.

[3] It’s not reasonable to suggest that we resort back to this form of hunting to kill animals. However, we can do MORE to change our food farms.

[1] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx
[2] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx
[3] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx

RD DB?

I can’t get over the argument that humans are, in some form or another, superior to animals. Norma tells John that a squirrel’s “world view comprises acorns and trees and weather and cats and dogs and automobiles… There’s no more.” (92) This point seems incredibly simplistic and arrogant.

To begin with every earthling has its own niche. They contribute to other species’ existences, who, in turn, contribute to others. Whether or not we feel various species’ roles in these mutual relationships are substandard we should still respect them. We should respect their lives, their contribution to the global ecosystem, and, most importantly, their role as the main course of our meals.

Also, in previous class discussions people have brought up the point that, in the wild, a predator kills its prey gruesomely- we’re just doing the same thing; it’s natural. I don’t believe, under any circumstances, can one compare these two situations. When a lion takes down a gazelle, it snaps the neck. It doesn’t chew off the horns and tail; it doesn’t make a point of letting it bleed slowly so it’ll taste better. There are certain things we do at food mills that are unacceptable, and, while the killing of animals is “necessary” for our survival, our methods aren’t. There is no reason animals’ “Will (should) stand stunned and numb” (763H) from months of living in revolting conditions.

As Smuts says in his essay, “when a human being relates to an individual nonhuman being as an anonymous object, rather than as a being with its own subjectivity, it is the human, and not the other animal, who relinquishes personhood.” (759) How can we claim moral and intellectual superiority when, in completely disregarding other species’ lives, we employ such inhuman methods of killing?

Moreover (and here I get a bit radical), how can we be a superior species when we enable and condone so much destruction in the world? I don’t see other species trafficking their young and starting wars (however primordial they would be). We are selfish beings that will not exercise a bit of self restraint. One may argue that animals are selfish as well, and I’d agree. However, at least animals know when to stop.

To get back to my original point, we owe animals our respect. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t kill them for food- it simply means that we should be compassionate about it. We don’t need “matadors or deer hunters armed with bows and arrows” to provide the world with its main protein source- “you do not feed four billion people” this way. (97) We need some major overhauls- we need regulation and standards. I don’t understand how people can spout “this is the way the world is” when we are capable of changing our current standards.

Costello

This concept of our specie’s, race’s, and/or religion’s superiority is the foundation for the world’s degradation.

[1] Destruction and pain wear many faces (war, poverty, famine, global warming, global dimming), but there is a common theme shared by every injustice committed- “the strong can do what they please with those who are in their power”. In this photo an Iranian man watches as Iraqi soldiers destroy oil refiners during the Iran-Iraq war.




Homo sapiens have upset the natural order of things in many respects:

1. Abusing other, “weaker” humans: In India many indigenous people have been diagnosed with cancer due to nuclear testing near their villages- all in the name of advancing a race and a nation.
2. Abusing the Earth: The Earth has been polluted by exorbitant amounts of waste, because humans don’t care about the consequences of their consumption habits.


[2] This photo is an areal view of a landfill in the United States. It’s estimated that in a year one American disposes of 1,460 pounds of trash. How much of that is recyclable? How much of it can be sold or given away? If we took a minute to think about where our trash goes, would that have any effect on the amount of waste we produced each year? The Earth feeds us, and we feed it with our left-overs, our trimmed fat, our unwanted things.

3. Abusing other species: Animals- whether they’re omnivores, carnivores, mammals, birds, crustations, or vertebrae- “…have no more power…” [1] The reverence our species once held for them has been demolished by our desire to conquer and dominate everything. “Animals only have their silence left with which to confront us.” [2]

The saying “cogito, ergo, sum… implies that a living being that does not do what we call thinking is somehow second class.” [3] I have two problems with this idea. First, what do we define thinking as? The ability to create? To communicate? To read books, do math, and understand science? A “consciousness of (oneself) as a… reasoning machine” [4]?

I think it’s ironic how we feel superior to other races or species because they don’t fulfill our standards of intelligence. We’re so removed from our true nature that we’re incapable of understanding other species’ motivations and desires… much less they way they think. And, when we understand so little about the natural world, we’ve still logical deduced the conclusion that we’re intellectually better.

It’s almost contradictory to employee intelligence as one’s main justification for dominance— all things natural feed our existence, directly and indirectly. The word is a complex machine of give and take, and we’re the only species who constantly takes but never gives. If we’re such intelligent beings, capable of such sophisticated things then why haven’t we figured out a way to give back to the hand that has feed our existence for millions of years?

[3] Native Americans would use every part of the buffalo. They were thankful for it’s contribution to their survival. Today, Westerners don’t regard their food sources with any semblance of respect: a cow provides steak and milk, no more, no less. I’m not advocating we get on our knees and say thank you to the slice of meat on our dinner plates, but if we just recognized how important other species are to our survival I think we’d discover that we owe them a bit more than a polluted environment and inhumane death.

I’ve heard a lot of people say that we’re much more developed today than we were millions of years ago, but I don’t understand how they’ve reached that conclusion (at least from a spiritual perspective). Millions of years ago we respected animals and mother nature- we understood our dependence and we cherished it. Back then we were “alive to the world” [5], fulfilled beings—today we are engrossed in our materialistic desires and power struggles. From a spiritual perspective, are we really better off?! This connection Man can have with all things natural is greater than any books we have read, buildings we have created, cars we have driven. We can find superficial meaning in our big cities and expensive houses, but if we truly want to connect with our spirit then we must stop looking at other beings of the word with notions of superiority and begin recognizing our oneness.

[4] I’m not suggesting that we forsake our civilization, and begin a new life a remote desert with coyotes for friends. If everyone had a chance to be reminded of the majesty of the natural world, to experience the things that provide for their existence, then they might be able to connect. And, when they connect, they can discover within themselves a spirit that isn’t tormented by materialism or corruption.

However, I am not suggesting that we resort back to our animal nature- after all, “normal humans have capacities that far exceed those of nonhuman animals, and some of those capacities are significant in particular contexts…” [6] (i.e. technology, medicine, art).

[.5] 743
[1]70
[2]70
[3]78
[4]78
[5]78
[6]743

PHOTOS

[1] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx
[2] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx
[3] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx
[4] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx

Coetzee

This concept of our specie’s, race’s, and/or religion’s superiority is the foundation for the world’s degradation. Homo sapiens have upset the natural order of things in many respects:

1. Abusing other, “weaker” humans: In India many indigenous people have been diagnosed with cancer due to nuclear testing near their villages- all in the name of advancing a race and a nation.
2. Abusing the Earth: The Earth has been polluted by exorbitant amounts of waste, because humans don’t care about the consequences of their consumption habits.
3. Abusing other species: Animals- whether they’re omnivores, carnivores, mammals, birds, crustations, or vertebrae- “…have no more power…” [1] The reverence our species once held for them has been demolished by our desire to conquer and dominate everything. “Animals only have their silence left with which to confront us.” [2]

The saying “cogito, ergo, sum… implies that a living being that does not do what we call thinking is somehow second class.” [3] I have two problems with this idea. First, what do we define thinking as? The ability to create? To communicate? To read books, do math, and understand science? A “consciousness of (oneself) as a… reasoning machine” [4]?

I think it’s ironic how we feel superior to other races or species because they don’t fulfill our standards of intelligence. We’re so removed from our true nature that we’re incapable of understanding other species’ motivations and desires… much less they way they think. And, when we understand so little about the natural world, we’ve still logical deduced the conclusion that we’re intellectually better.

It’s almost contradictory to employee intelligence as one’s main justification for dominance— all things natural feed our existence, directly and indirectly. The word is a complex machine of give and take, and we’re the only species who constantly takes but never gives. If we’re such intelligent beings, capable of such sophisticated things then why haven’t we figured out a way to give back to the hand that has feed our existence for millions of years?

I’ve heard a lot of people say that we’re much more developed today than we were millions of years ago, but I don’t understand how they’ve reached that conclusion (at least from a spiritual perspective). Millions of years ago we respected animals and mother nature- we understood our dependence and we cherished it. Back then we were “alive to the world” [5], fulfilled beings—today we are engrossed in our materialistic desires and power struggles. From a spiritual perspective, are we really better off?! This connection Man can have with all things natural is greater than any books we have read, buildings we have created, cars we have driven. We can find superficial meaning in our big cities and expensive houses, but if we truly want to connect with our spirit then we must stop looking at other beings of the word with notions of superiority and begin recognizing our oneness.

However, I am not suggesting that we resort back to our animal nature- after all, “normal humans have capacities that far exceed those of nonhuman animals, and some of those capacities are significant in particular contexts…” [6] (i.e. technology, medicine, art).

[1]70
[2]70
[3]78
[4]78
[5]78

Earthlings

My reaction to Earthlings: …

I’m not sure if I should be horrified, defensive, or outraged.

OBSERVATION ONE:
The screenplay is definitely a thought provoker, but it’s also a very obvious piece of propaganda. Had Monson included citations for ALL of his statistics, concrete evidence for his claims, and a response to his critics then I would be more… receptive of his position. Please don’t interpret this to mean that I’m suggesting he’s full of shit, I am just disappointed with his presentation.

It’s a good strategy to employ pathos and ethos in an argument, but it’s not enough. If Monson really wanted to make an effective, life-altering documentary then he would have provided his readers with more substance. He sites eleven pieces of literature, and all of them are affiliates of animal-rights organizations!

[1] Monson only uses animal activists’ literature. His arguments would have been more compelling if he’d thought to bring in other studies, because his readers/viewers have preconceived notions about the legitimacy of his sources. This is the only photo I could find of an event organized by PETA (one of Monson’s sources) that I feel is inappropriate and, by default, discredits the organization.

Moreover, I find his section on animal experimentation very frustrating. As this section is the most controversial of the five, one would think that he’d put a bit more effort in legitimizing his stance by mentioning alternatives to animal testing. [1]

[2] There are a variety of alternatives to animal testing including "synthetic skin," called Corrositex, computer modeling, improved statistical design The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA). Had Monson mentioned the success of these alternatives, his argument that animal testing is wrong would have been more persuasive.

Also, he implies that animal testing in general is “an insult to true science, as well as human intelligence” [2] which is simply outlandish! How can he say that when he only gives examples of outdated forms of testing: “the purpose of this experiment is to stimulate auto crashes… football…boxing… and other head related injuries…”[3]? A mammal’s body is an exceptionally intricate, complicated thing, and some forms of medical research (like AIDS!) cannot be done without animal experimentation.

[3] In this photo a scientist is injecting a mouse with HIV. Animal testing allows researchers to study HIV in greater detail than in humans. Researchers are able to develop hypothesis based on their observations of the animals, and then check/test it in humans.

OBSERVATION TWO:

“… it is not the inability to find out what is going on as much as a desire not to know about facts that may lie heavy on one’s conscience that is responsible for this lack of awareness…” [4]

Humans can hardly extend this conscience to themselves much less animals. I’m not surprised by what I’ve read in Earthlings. Our species has spearheaded destruction at unprecedented levels- global warming, nuclear proliferation, genocide, slavery- all in the name of self preservation. As long as we’re the last one standing we WILL blind ourselves to the injustices around the world, because we have little respect for each other, the earth, and other species. In saying, “we like to think of these as absolutes: that there are distinct lines between humans and animals, and that certain ‘human’ rights are unalienable. But we’re kidding ourselves” [5] McNeil argues this point (albeit with a more central focus). Even if one doesn’t believe animals have souls, one still should value their contribution to human existence; weaker human qualities should have no bearing on our treatment of other species.

[4] The Spanish Parliament’s attempt to extend human rights to apes because of their human qualities seems egotistical to me. Apes don’t deserve special treatment because of their genetic makeup. Each species contributes to life in different ways, and, if you’re going to pass legislation to protect animals so they’re not subjugated to pain, you shouldn’t be so exclusive. As Monson says, “pain is pain” [6].

---

Instead of saying “don’t have, eat, or test animals” perhaps one should say “have, eat, and test animals, but be RESPECTFUL about it”.



[1] http://altweb.jhsph.edu/faqs.htm
[2] 727
[3] 728
[4] 729
[5] 732
[6] 729

PHOTOS:
[1] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx

[2] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx

[3] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx

[4] http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx