a presentation

Subjects: Animal rights movement, Product introduction, Automobiles, Leather & leather products

Classification Codes 9175 Western Europe, 8680 Transportation equipment industry

Companies: DaimlerChrysler(Ticker:DCX, Sic:336111 ) , People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Sic:813312 )

Document types: News

Column Name: Cars

Publication title: Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Feb 10, 2005. pg. 1

Source type: Newspaper

ISSN/ISBN: 00999660

ProQuest document ID: 791142471

Text Word Count 154

Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=791142471&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=87&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Abstract (Document Summary)

"When you consider that the skins of four to 15 cows are needed for each car this means thousands of cows will be spared," said PETA researcher Edmund Haferbeck. "This is a huge victory for animal rights."

Full Text (154 words)

Copyright © 2005, Dow Jones & Company Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

Reuters News Service

BERLIN -- Mercedes-Benz has agreed to offer "leather-free" versions of all its luxury cars to pacify an animal-rights group that says thousands of cows are slaughtered each year for leather car seats and interiors.

After complaints from the German chapter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, DaimlerChrysler AG said its Mercedes subsidiary will offer fabric or synthetic leather as options.

Daimler spokeswoman Ursula Mertzig-Stein said that far from wanting leather-free cars, "our customers . . . are more likely to want even more leather at the premium end. But we'll make cars without leather on demand."

PETA officials, who had threatened protests at the car maker's Stuttgart headquarters, said they were delighted.

"When you consider that the skins of four to 15 cows are needed for each car this means thousands of cows will be spared," said PETA researcher Edmund Haferbeck. "This is a huge victory for animal rights."

Alright everyone, this paper is due Tuesday August 9th and on that day I give a presentation to the class. I'll try to put the ppt on here so if anyone wants it they can use/ alter it. I think I can post my paper so if anyone will read it and give me any feedback they want, I would be grateful (it is about 5 pages in microsoft word so it may take some time to read, again thanks!)...

Did you forget someone, or better yet, something?

When I talk to people about minorities, they think in terms of race. Our text book by Richard T. Schaefer (2004) discusses human race and ethnicity, and today children in most schools are taught about the history of racism in the U.S. People are aware of race and minority status, they are aware of what happens to minorities, and some people even provoke what happens to the minorities such as the KKK and their ilk who possess xenophobic ideologies. What drives these ideologies is partially fear, perhaps that is all that is there, but Schaefer also points out economic components of the creation of subordinate groups. Fear and the economy are part of a society and so there is a societal influence on minority groups as well. The subordinate group is a labeling effect to justify exploitation. Government is not free from blame here though. It was government policy that sanctioned slavery; government that protected segregation, government that interned the Japanese, and government which started a war on drugs which historically targets minorities, Government is responsible for the holocaust, and let us not forget about its attempts to “civilize” the “savage” Native Americans. Government is the ability for a few to have power over many and this is evident with policies the government has had in the past as previously mentioned.

As our society progresses the plight of the under-dog becomes more intolerable, as I believe because it stands out more. Our text book (Schaefer, 2004) shows this with the diagrams in the conclusion sections. Each chapter has a chart noting segregation and above it with an arrow indicating past behaviors such as extermination we see “increasingly unacceptable” and assimilation is towards the other end of the chart and under it reads “more tolerable.” During the depression racism was acceptable, people had things like feeding their families to worry about, but now if a mosque is spray painted, or someone not given a taxi ride we hear about it, and many people have a reaction and want justice. This trend is obvious when considering civil rights legislation, and even church mission work to help the needy. Government has tried to turn things around with legislation for civil rights, and even hate crimes laws, but as we will see the legislation meant to do good things can easily be circumvented or even hurt the groups it meant to protect.

One subordinate group that has been overlooked the most are animals or I should specify as non-human species, but for this paper I will use animal just to spare myself from some extra typing. Animal rights supporters have been around since people have lived in societies. People ranging from Pythagoras, to Pilgrims, to Protestants have recognized that animals have rights just as humans do. Not the right to vote or own property, but the right to live their lives free from bondage and servitude. They believe animals have a right to live, period! Which is a notion not reflected in our mainstream society. A portion of this paper is an attempt to understand why this is so, and also how laws can impact animal rights and welfare.

To understand our relation to animals we should consider what came before, or the context of today. The theories I can think of which support the consumption, involuntary contact and inherent exploitation of animals comes out of domesticating them. It is necessary to consider why it was that they were domesticated, but also reasons why animals were eaten. There is no need to do a very thorough history of time since many have been exposed to it, but one theory proposes that humans would not have evolved without consuming meat for protein as Jay Thorley (2005) shows. Colin Spencer (2002) notes that meat protein “is not much superior to eggs or nuts” and protein itself does not “alter the evolution of the brain.” Colin reveals that brain evolution would require omega 6 and omega 3 fatty acids. Omega 6 can be found in several foods including meat, while omega 3 comes from plant foods. In summary a complete or predominantly meat based diet would not have helped the brain evolve. Colin uses other carnivorous animals as an example, and says that they “would have become far more intelligent and might by now have been the dominant species” if a total meat diet made you evolve. Even after all this the consumption of meat as necessity is still a central theme in the mainstream society; making it what Schaefer (2004) would call a normative approach. Many people are very puzzled at how anyone can live without meat, and people have told me, to my face it is not possible though I have been living without it for 5 years now. If one applies functionalist theory then some explanation as to why we still eat animals can be devised. It stands to reason that since so many people believe they must eat animals to live then society could very well become unstable and possibly perish if this majority were denied their meat. Contrary to the theories that man evolved by eating meat, David Nibert (2002) in his book makes an example of what Steven Mithen, an anthropologist has proposed. Mithen claims that the “australopithecines, who lived between 4.2 and 1 million years ago were largely vegetarians.” Nibert also writes that “hunting was an ineffective and inefficient way of obtaining resources.” In modern times we have become completely domesticated as well and the only gathering we must do is at the grocery store, so why do we still consume animals and treat them as inferior beings? Religion has been instrumental in sanctifying the consumption of animals. Many ancient cultures had rituals around hunting and animal slaughter. Colin Spencer (2002) provides us with an account from Peter Wilson who noted that the Tsimihety in Madagascar “ate meat solely on ritual occasions, about twelve times a year.” Many, especially the Native Americans, believed the animals had spirits so they tried to be respectful. This spiritualized thinking gave way to scientific thought. Descartes proposed that all beings are nothing more than machines, and therefore took away emotions from living beings that were thought to be inferior, specifically animals. Descartes’ theory is still alive with the majority of our society, but there have always been those people so in tune with other beings that they defy the majority.

Pythagoras is one of the first people to be recorded as having an “abstention from meat.”(Colin Spencer, 2002). Colin Spencer (2002) also writes that John Wesley the founder of Methodism was a vegetarian. These people are just examples that there have been throughout history people who believe that meat eating is not something humans need to do for various reasons. During the 1900’s women wanted rights in the society they lived in, specifically those in the U.S. and U.K. Women wanted the right to vote (suffrage). It is documented that many women in the suffrage movement were also vegetarian (Leah Leneman, 1997) and actually opposed abortion (Vasu Murti, n.d.). These women saw all life as sacred, not just those of humans. As we know the women succeeded, and were recognized as having the right to vote, however animals did not see an improvement in their lot in society. This group believed that once they succeed other reforms such as animal rights will come naturally. They believed that if they could gain the right to vote then society must be progressing; it must have changed, but I think they overlook the power they had in creating a legal change, but not a change in mentality of those within the society. Minorities around this time were also looking to gain more civil power and aided the women’s movement. Today there exist many different animal advocate groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS), Compassion Over Killing (COK), and the Farm Sanctuary which is “the nation’s largest farm animal rescue and protection organization” (http://www.farmsanctuary.org/about/index.htm).

The judgments and views our society has about animals are reflected in the laws passed. We have the Animal Welfare Act which seeks to protect animals. The problem is that it only goes so far, and the enforcement is optional by citizens, there are no real police assigned to do this. So the Humane Society and other animal shelter groups tend to be the ones funding the methods to catch the violators. This act seeks to protect animals from some psychological harm as well as suffering while they are in the lab. Subpart C 2.33 of the act requires “attending veterinarian and adequate veterinary care.” Part 4 of section 2.32 requires that pain be limited to that which is “unavoidable for the conduct of scientifically valuable” research. This bill places no limitations on the animals that can be used. The act also establishes the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). This body is to approve of the experiments done at a facility, and they inspect the facility in a given time span to make sure animals are treated in accordance with the act. By now you may think well things are looking great for the animals, what is the fuss? In section 2.31 part (a) of the act which creates the IACUC, its formation is also discussed. The committee is to be selected by the “Chief Executive Officer of the research facility.” To me this is not very effective and so to ensure the complete accordance with the act, an independent panel should be created. The Animal Welfare Act has provisions of the types of pain animals can be subjected to within the experiment, but it also covers stolen animals who are sold to those who experiment on animals. The act makes this illegal so it actually does more to protect cats and dogs who already are revered in our society, but still lets other animals (which do not usually live in human homes) lack protections. Protection from pain for animals is not absolute either. If an experiment needs the animal to suffer then no anesthesia is given. Vivisection is the best example for needless suffering brought to animals for “scientific” purposes, and it is not banned anywhere even though movements against vivisection have been around for centuries. Our society wants to protect animals somewhat though. Nibert (2002) asks us to think of Keiko the Whale, who starred in Free Willy. Many wanted Keiko to have a bigger tank and he got one, but not many care about the other animals they may see at Sea World nor the dolphins which were killed so they could have a can of tuna. We as a society care enough about animals that there is an endangered species act. A majority feel it is necessary to protect animal species who are about to become extinct, but do not feel that protecting those with normal populations needing of protection. Our society does protect domestic animals too. It appears that if the animal has a face to the public, such as their pets or Keiko the whale, people will want to treat them well but if it is just another cow in the pasture or an animal they have not seen individually, they do not care. The humane slaughter act advocates for the quickest effective methods to be used to kill animals for food, but this is frequently violated as accounts from slaughterhouses reveal. The one area where animals can see improved treatment is if they are domestic animals. This includes dogs, chickens, cows, pigs, turkeys, cats etc. The Humane Society can step in and seize these animals if their owners neglect them. The ironic thing is these animals are species eaten by people everyday all over the world. Why is it that we have the enigma of wanting to protect animals on one hand, but sanctioning their slaughter and inherent suffering on the other? We feel a kinship with some domestic animals, but then they are also seen as property, thus we must question if people value animals intrinsically or just as something they posses. This all goes back to how people view animals. I believe that when there is suffering people take notice, but when things are fine they go about their daily lives as if everything was perfect. There are also feelings of superiority which are ubiquitous for humans in the industrialized world. They still feel that it is good to eat animals, it is natural, but it is also good to limit suffering as evidenced by Dr. Temple Grandin writing for McDonald’s, claims to “[care] about the humane treatment of animals,” (http://www.mcdonalds.com...) but, as I must emphasize, not their lives.

Mercy for animals is not only a website (http://www.mercyforanimals.org/) but a position mostly attributed to political leftists as most people who know me think I am some kind of hippie because I don’t eat meat. There is another website (www.conservativeveggie.com) which is a message board, but shows that liberals are not the only ones who do not eat animals. A conservative columnist George Will wrote an article based on the former speech writer for George W. Bush- Matthew Scully. According to Will, Scully writes that “"We cannot just take from these creatures; we must give them something in return. We owe them a merciful death, and we owe them a merciful life." This shows that people in our society are having altered thoughts, and I think that this is becoming a predominant way of thinking when considering the laws to protect animals and even the KFC boycott that is happening now which even Al Sharpton endorses (www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com). Melanie Joy defines this progress as an “animal welfare” stance because as she noted animal welfarists “seek humane slaughter,” whereas, animal rights people seek to end their slaughter.

I realize things will not improve in this world over night. It has taken centuries to fight the idea that some people are better than others, I only hope it does not take centuries to fight the speciesist views currently held by the majority of members in our society. It is apparent that views are changing. The general trend from McDonalds to the law is that animal suffering should be reduced. Many are waiting for when we as a society decide animals do not need to suffer any more than humans do. Harold A Herzog (1995), however, read through some media and noted a decline in concern for animal welfare/rights since 1990. He explained this trend by noting that historically the public attention waxes and wanes with time. He also proposed that more animal activism is in the courts, so not presented in the media which he searched through. Another thing he mentioned that could “take some of the wind out of the sails of animal activists” are acts like the animal welfare act. Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." It is very plausible that many nations in this world are actually in decline.

References

Joy, M. (2005). Humanistic psychology and animal rights: Reconsidering the boundaries of the humanist ethic. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 45(1), pp.106-130.

Grandin, T. (n.d.) Animal welfare. Retrieved August 5, 2005, from http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/socialrespons/market/animalwelfare.html

Schaefer, R. T. (2004). Racial and ethnic groups. 10th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Spencer, C. (2002). Vegetarianism: A history. 2nd Ed. New York, NY, Four Walls Eight Windows.

Nibert, D. (2002). Animal rights / Human rights. United Stats of America, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Thorley, J. (2005). Protein and human evolution. Retrieved August 7, 2005, from http://www.iianthropology.org/JayThorley.

Farm Sanctuary (n.d.) About farm sanctuary. Retrieved August 6th, 2005, from http://www.farmsanctuary.org/about/index.htm.

Leneman, L. (1997). The awakened instinct: Vegetarianism and the women’s suffrage movement in Britain. Women’s History Review, 6(2), pp. 271-287.

Murti, V. (n.d.) The slaughter of the innocents. Retrieved August 4th, 2005, from http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/next-33.html

Herzog, H. A. (1995) Has public interest in animal rights peaked? American Psychologist, 50(11), pp. 945-947.

Frederick, K. G. & Adrian, R. M. (2000). Science and self-doubt. Retrieved August 6th, 2005, from http://reason.com/0010/fe.fg.science.shtml

Rev. Al Sharpton preaches compassion for chickens. Retrieved August 7th, 2005, from http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/sharpton.asp

Animal Welfare Act (1991) Retrieved August 4th, 2005, from http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/9cfr2_03.html

hey College,

I just skimmed it - it is excellent. Only thing that I didnt see was the fact that the Humane Slaughter Act excludes some animals altogether (like chickens, I think). This is think is definietly worth mentioning.

otherwise, your presentation is going to KICK ASS and maybe, just maybe, one audience member will be more open to veganism after he heras your speech!!

Thanks nat, i'll have to add that.

Okay that is in there (i knew I wrote about that act somewhere!), but I can see how you may miss it. I should try to put the name of the act in there more. I do think I need to write about the humane slaughter act and the animal interprise act.

Aweome Brian!

I read it tonight. It took me a good 15 minutes, but I got it done. I've already discussed it with you on AOL IM, I just suggested a concrete solution as to "what can we do?" from a non-vegan perpective, with specific steps in mind.

Have a great time with the presentation and now that your t-shirt is in the mail, next time you present something like this you'll be able to wear it!

Kollision suggested that anyone who wants to read the article, copy and paste it into word and double space it. That was a lot of text to read on such long lines on the forum.

Great job, well written, I had a few suggestions, but you know those by now and let us know how it goes!

Stay positive and have a great time educating others!

-Robert

Uff.

Great job!

Only small thing i'd change is

One subordinate group that has been overlooked the most are animals or I should specify as non-human species, but for this paper I will use animal just to spare myself from some extra typing.

I'd make a demonstration of it to NOT say animal. Language is a tool. It would be exaggerated to exchange every single "animal" with "non-human species", but i think it'd be good to do that several times throughout the text, as a reminder.

Tell us how it went

daywalker, i'll keep that in mind, but now I cant make that change since "animal" is all over my paper and i have about 30 mins till i need to turn it in, but I want to post a final draft up on the boards so that change can be made. Thanks for your suggestion.

I presented. It went alright. I was very nervous doing my powerpoint presentation, and after that just about everyone in the room had a question for me. I liked answering questions. Everyone was respectful and didnt ask questions to make me seem odd or anything like that, they mostly had questions about my lifestyle. I'd do it agian if I could, but would bring water since my mouth dried out.

I know this is late, and you already gave your presentation - but I just read your report - and I think it's great stuff with good research. I imagine it got at least a couple of people in your class to think about things

I hope so. It seemed that most people didn't care and a few might have been interested but nobody changed diets I believe.

I'm really late catching this thread, you wrote a great piece

I wouldn't rule out changing peoples mind quite yet. I've had quite a few people come up to me saying they took leaflets off me years ago & have now changed to either veggie or vegan (I seem to be saying that a lot recently???).

These kind of life-changing things take time for a lot of people, they got to upset (& they do get upset about it) family, partners, friends. Change their routines, the places they eat, maybe hobbies etc etc. We sometimes forget quite what an upheaval these changes can be for the "average jo(e)", it takes a lot to partially segregate themselves off from parts of their usual social activities. Especially in some areas of the world. You've planted the seed mate, that's the best you can do, it'll take time to see if it's had any effect...

Thanks Will and Pete for your encouragement.

ya I agree. College, I think you may be underestimating yourself and the influence your presentation might have had. You for surely planted the some seeds!

By the way great idea with the "favourite quotes" thread.

n

Thanks CG