Our Previous Samples

The poem Beowulf was written between the 8th and 10th centuries, a time of great transition. Anglo-Saxons still dominated England, and Christianity had only come to the region one hundred or so years before. Although the new religion spread quickly, Anglo-Saxon (or Norse) paganism and its influence in the English people's lives did not subside quickly. Although Beowulf often speaks of God, the story of Cain and Abel, and the Great Flood, there are major pagan motifs and social interactions that underly the poem and keep it rooted in old Anglo-Saxon ideas. The poem synthesizes Christian and pagan beliefs, and a close reading shows that there are many more pagan elements than immediately obvious. More than Christianity, paganism is the social basis for the society Beowulf addresses.

Some elements of Christianity are obvious in this poem. Grendel is said to have descended from Cain, Adam and Eve’s fratricidal son in the Book of Genesis (Heaney, 9), and the poem makes frequent references to thanking God for bestowing victory upon Beowulf. However, as Beowulf scholar Benjamin Slade points out in his talk comparing the Christian and pagan elements of the story, the poet never names Christ explicitly. After his defeat of Grendel, Beowulf calls for the “Almighty Father be thanked” (Heaney, 63). Yet as Slade points out, giving thanks to God and making references to divine blessings and judgment after death are not at all exclusive to Christian theology. Beowulf contains very little talk of Christ's teaching of salvation and forgiveness, and there is almost an exclusively “Old Testament” feel to the poem’s Christian elements.

An interesting point where Christianity and paganism cross in the story is the mention of a “great flood” depicted on the hilt of a sword (Heaney, 117). Indeed, there is talk of a great flood in Genesis, but Slade correctly observes that the flood described in the poem “makes no reference to Noah, or an ark, or the effect of the flood on anyone except the giants.” A flood killing many giants, however, is not exclusive to Christianity, but is also mentioned in the pagan story of Ymir in which the giant's blood floods the world and kills all the other giants. Thus, it seems that the author blended two traditions into one poetic element in a very ambiguous way.

One of the major pagan elements that is common across the story is the idea of Fate. Fate was an integral part of Anglo-Saxon and Norse theology, and the Anglo-Saxon society from which Beowulf sprang (and the Norse societies to which the poem speaks) still placed a great deal of trust in it. Fate is what leads King Hygelac to his death in battle (Heaney, 85) and is what leads to Grendel’s death – not simply the will of God. Just as much talk as there is of God's grace and will, there is talk of destiny and divine inevitability. Even in his final moments, Beowulf speaks of his death and his past glories as being part of his fate. As the poem's hero says before fighting Grendel: “Fate goes as ever Fate must” (Heaney, 31).

Another pagan social ideal central to the poem is the concept of the feud or duel. In Anglo-Saxon and Norse society, the holmgang – the traditional duel for settling disputes of honor – was considered very important to maintain the balance of social harmony (Day). For Hrothgar, the King of the Danes, the need to slay Grendel is not just from a need to protect his kingdom, but to avenge the destruction of his hall at Heorot and the death of his thanes (retainers) at the hands of Grendel (Heaney, 9-11). Even the demonic mother of Grendel seems bound by this code, when she seeks revenge for the death of her son at the hands of Beowulf and his cohorts (Heaney, 89). The Christian ideal of loving one's enemies and “turning the other cheek” seems clearly absent for the heroes in Beowulf, who seem to be bound by the need to maintain the balance of honor by feuding between various sections of society (Day). The poem's hero sums up clearly the Nordic idea of the importance of the feud, in saying “It is always better to avenge dear ones than to indulge in mourning” (Heaney, 97).

The most critical remnant of Anglo-Saxon pagan social relations within Beowulf is the aforementioned concept of honor. In slaying Grendel, it is just as important that Beowulf gained a great deal of honor for himself and the Geatish people as it was for him to defend the Danes from Grendel and the monster’s mother. King Hrothgar speaks clearly of family honor, an dits importance to society, within his family and Beowulf's family after Grendel's death (Heaney 83-85). Even at the end of his life, Beowulf is not concerned about salvation or accession into Heaven, but instead is more concerned with having fulfilled an honorable life that is worthy of posthumous prestige (Heaney 189, 213). His death is an explicitly pagan one, with a traditional cremation on a funeral pyre bedecked with gold and treasures, rather than the simple Christian burial rites of the time (which were more concerned with the glories and riches awaiting the dead in Heaven, not their earthly possessions).

Although the poet that put Beowulf to paper was almost certainly a Christian, the society that he inhabited was not completely Christianized itself, and the content and social interactions within the poem make this quite clear. While there is much talk of God, Cain and Abel, and divine rewards, there is never a specific mention of these things being exclusively Christian elements of the story. For Beowulf, honor and prestige are far more important than enacting God's will or achieving salvation after death, even at the end of his life. Thus, one cannot say that Beowulf is a Christian poem, but a tale that grew out of a society in transition from pagan to Christian.

References

1. Van Meter, D. C. (1996). The Ritualized Presentation of Weapons and the Ideology of Nobility in" Beowulf". The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 95(2), 175-189. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27711299)
2. Smol, A. (1994). Heroic Ideology and the Children's Beowulf. Children's Literature, 22(1), 90-100. (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/246296)
3. Semple, S. (1998). A fear of the past: The place of the prehistoric burial mound in the ideology of middle and later Anglo?Saxon England. World Archaeology, 30(1), 109-126. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00438243.1998.9980400)
4. Viljoen, L. (2003). The Beowulf manuscript reconsidered: Reading Beowulf in late Anglo-Saxon England. Literator: Journal of Literary Criticism, Comparative Linguistics and Literary Studies, 24(2), 39-57 (https://journals.co.za/doi/abs/10.10520/EJC61740)
5. Richardson, P. (1997). Point of view and identification in Beowulf. Neophilologus, 81(2), 289-298. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1004268632102)

Animal Cruelty Worldwide

According to the “HSUS nearly 1 million animals a year are abused or killed in connection with domestic violence.”(Humane Society United States, “Cruel Practices”) This is only counting the animals that suffer physical abuse meaning it doesn’t even brush up on the fact that there are many forms of cruelty in lab testing, farm slaughtering, clubbing, and having them live in terrible facilities. 1 million animals are abused or killed worldwide, yearly. That doesn’t even bring up the other forms of cruelty such as lab testing, slaughtering, and terrible facilities for animals to live in. Now when you add everything together you equal more than a million, but most forms of this abuse is allowed by government so it isn’t considered a form of “cruelty”. This means unless we change the minds of the government we will never have a new view on animal cruelty worldwide.

No country is left out of the list regarding animal abuse as every country has their share. Animal cruelty is an ongoing problem that will continue everywhere in the world. Cruelty towards animals has been around since man has been around animals. A few cases animal cruelty are dog fighting, bullfighting, seal clubbing, animal testing, and daily abuse towards animals.

According to the Humane society dog fighting is “ a “contest” where two dogs, specifically bred, conditioned, and trained to fight, are placed in a pit to fight each other for the spectators’ entertainment and gambling.” (“Dog Fighting Fact Sheet”) These dogs fight for the entertainment of the people watching and are born/bred into this lifestyle. The owners that are in charge of these animals don’t care about what happens to these animals after the fight, normally letting the losing animal die of infection from wounds, starvation, or even murdering the losing animal.

Across the world dog fighting is mostly illegal, but some places still allow it. In areas like North America, South America, most of Russia, Australia, South Africa, India, and Pakistan it is banned to practice dog fighting, yet it is still found. Many of the people that are interested in dog fighting do not care about the very minimal consequences that can follow their capture due to the fact of how much one can make in these fights. Two winning fights alone could get you enough to pay off your dogs bills for the remainder of his life.

Many people believe that all dog fighting is underground or in third world countries with a low income, but in fact Japan has dog fighting that is practiced in a few smaller named cities and Afghanistan has dog fighting as a pastime during the winter. The Taliban were actually the ones to remove dog fighting from Afghanistan until recently when it started to become more prevalent in large cities like Kabul.

P.E.T.A recently provided us with a statistic about how “Each Year thousands of bulls are barbarically slaughtered in bullrings around the world.”(“Bullfighting”) Bullfighting isn’t a very large statistical gathering when comparing it to the rest of things that are prevalent in the world, but when look at Spain and Portugal you can see how and why this needs to be stopped. Spain and Portugal do not see this as a form of abuse due to the long history of bullfighting in their culture.

Bullfighting is categorized as when a bull enters a ring and men on horse try to stab lances through the bulls back to make sure the bull can’t lift its head and has significant blood loss. From here more people enter the ring and jab more spears into the bull as it starts to become dizzy from blood loss and eventually gives in to its attackers. Finally a matador enters the ring and kills the bull, sometimes missing and letting the animal suffer in paralysis on the ground as it is dragged away by its horns.

Most people believe that these bulls have a form of a chance to fight back and fend for themselves, but this is far from the truth. In these rings many of the bulls are reported to have their horns shaved, petroleum jelly rubbed into their eyes, and extremely weak from beatings. Before these animals even enter the ring they don’t have a chance of defending themselves as they are in poor shape to begin with. This is also not mentioning how the horses are treated. The horses are forced to circle around constantly at full speed while getting constantly spurred. More often than not getting charged and mutilated by the bulls that are trying to defend themselves. If the horse isn’t too badly injured it is then forced to drag the body of the bull out of the ring.

Seal hunting is a concept that many people don’t understand. It is when you find a seal and kill it, most in a very inhumane way through poking, clubbing, and stabbing with large hooks only to be used for food and sometimes even sport. This act as become illegal in many areas of the world as has the purchasing and selling of seal fur, but even some places like Canada still allow the hunting of these animals.

According to statistics found on Seal-world “It is estimated that each year more than 300,000 of them are senselessly slaughtered. It is also believed that the government of Canada doesn’t pay attention to the quota limits that it has in place. Instead it continues to encourage people to kill all they can and even offers monetary rewards for those killed above the quota.” (BioExpedition, “Seal Hunting”) Even with the pressure on Canada to change many of the laws they have been very unwilling to cooperate with other countries asking them to add the protection.

Animal testing is a large portion of the cruelty discovered among creatures. It is estimated according to the Humane Society “it is estimated more than 115 million animals in laboratory experiments each year around the world.” (“Animal Use Statistics”) This testing is provided as it allows us to see what a certain product would do to a human if used. These tests have recently been found as not helpful due to the differences in animals and humans.

Zoosadism is the pleasure of being cruel towards animals, makes sense to discuss it in this form as the average cases of animal abuse would be the things everyone knows including neglect and beating. Statistically speaking this is the biggest problem when it comes to animal cruelty. It is hard to define abuse in a worldwide case, but it is estimated that the amount of reported cases is somewhere close to 25 million abused animals in the world. That’s not to mention the fact that 2/3rds of the world’s abused animal population goes unreported. This means that the calculation of animals in trouble worldwide is actually somewhere close to 75 million as opposed to the recorded amount.

Throughout history it has been culturally acceptable to be cruel and inhumane to animals without any form of consequences. The first recorded form of animal abuse is dogfighting which came about during the 12th century. The british used their dogs to fight as a sport for money and glory. As this became bigger in Britain they started to breed actual fighting dogs and export to other countries to fight. The conditions of these breeding houses became worse and worse as time as did the sport. Through this sport many started to become even more barbaric, letting these bred dogs fight large animals like Boars and Bulls.

The main reason of this was cultural mixing in between nations. Romans were known as warriors and fighters, they enjoyed anything more barbaric. When Romans came to England and noticed the stronger dogs that they had. From England the dog fighting spread to other places all over Europe reaching places like Portugal and Norway. This is where the sport took off, and not many of the rules have changed since then.

Even if there may be no natural consequences to abusing an animal it is still a large matter at hand. Most of these forms of cruelty are illegal and deemed too violent in America and Canada, but it is still easily done in the shadows of crime industries and gangs. Besides this it is viewed by a normal crowd as barbaric in a most civilized world.

Most of the consequences of Animal cruelty aren’t large at all given such a big problem. An example of this is with the second biggest dog fighting Bust in America. This was the hardest penalty that was ever given to leaders of dog fighting rings. These men had 367 live dogs, not including the dogs that were found dead in their backyard and the hundreds brought in daily to fight. The ranges of these sentences were between two months-eight years for the recorded death of at least 640 dogs. The one man running the dog fighting was the one with the highest sentence of 8 years. The consequences that are in place really don’t do much to deter people from creating trouble in the animal cruelty world.

The laws revolving animal cruelty aren’t enough to stop people. Recently in America, we have been working to create consequences for people that commit these crimes. Thankfully “the Farm Bill, signed earlier this year by President Obama, made it a federal offense to attend an organized animal fight, and also imposed additional penalties for bringing a minor to a fight.”(Cronin, “FBI Case Results In Harshest Dog Fighting Penalty Ever”) This bill was passed on February 7th, 2014, two years ago in a very “well civilized nation.”

The people that learn these statistics normally feel obligated to do something in order to protect the animals that can not defend themselves, others may not feel that certain forms of abuse actually are considered abuse. Everyone will always have different feelings on the matter and you can not change the mind of many of the people that don’t believe this is a large problem.

Animals are countlessly tortured in labs every year, yet we feel it is necessary to do this. According to statistics found by the dosomething organization says “Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in US labs every year.”(“Facts about Animals”) As you learn more about this terrible situation you end up realizing that animal testing doesn’t even work that well. I say this because another statistic provided by the dosomething organization says “92% of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don’t work.” (“11 Facts About Animal Testing”) This means we are running animals through testing and 92% of these drugs that are safe or effective in animals end up still being too harmful for humans.

The major creators of beauty products have actually banned animal testing. Israel, India, and Europe are all free of animal testing and aren’t allowed to do anything of that nature. They have banned this because they realize that this work is just painful towards animals and has no great outcome. With that they have also banned the import of these types of products as well. Ny times speaks well about the E.U. problem and how they feel:

The European Union banned animal testing of finished cosmetic products in 2004. A second ban, on animal-tested ingredients, went into effect four years ago. But heavy lobbying by major cosmetics manufacturers resulted in an extension of the deadline for some tests for effects like allergies and cancer and for which there is still no substitute. Monday’s action eliminated those remaining exemptions.

People always talk about how we don’t have an extra precaution if we don’t test things on animals first. They seem to think that because of animal testing we have been able to increase intensive studying and research, yet they also seem to forget to realize the truth behind it all. According to FDA “92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous. And of the small percentage of drugs approved for human use, half end up being relabeled because of side effects that were not identified in tests on animals.” (“Animal Testing is Bad Science”) Along with that many of the people tend to try and encourage their idea of animal testing by saying that these animals are not being hurt, yet we read another quote from PETA about the laws that are supposed to be used to protect animals “The only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act, allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and painkillers are not even required.” (“Animal Testing is Bad Science”)

If we were to take the culture out of animal cruelty I believe that it would slow down and eventually stop the process. Canada for example has been hunting seals for at least 4,000 years as it was a symbol of growing up to them. The problem with this is that Canadians no longer consume the animal that they have killed and also no longer use this as an expression for growing up, they use all of this as a game. People do not want to remove these barbaric forms of cruelty because of how ancient a majority of forms are, yet at the same time it isn’t right to call ourselves civilized in the 21st century and still torture animals by beating them to death with a club as a sport.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Animal cruelty has been around for a very long time and has always been an ongoing problem. Sadly it seems as though we will never be able to change the views of those who are “culturally” ok with these forms of slaughter. We need to educate individuals the ethics behind saving a defenseless creature as we seem very uncivilized in doing all of this. If this continues many humans will become so ingrained on the idea of abuse that we will no longer feel emotion for these animals. We need to teach countries exactly what is wrong with all of this.

Works Cited

1. Animal Use Statistics. (n.d.). Humane Society of the United States. Retrieved from https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/archive/assets/pdfs/abuse/statistics/fact-sheet-animal-testing.pdf
2. Animal Testing is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint. (n.d.). PETA.
3. Bullfighting. (n.d.). PETA.
4. Cronin, M. (2014, June 30). FBI Case Results In Harshest Dog Fighting Penalty Ever. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fbi-case-results-in-hars_b_5555596
5. Dog Fighting Fact Sheet. (n.d.). Humane Society of the United States.
6. Facts about Animals Used for Experimentation. (n.d.). DoSomething.org.
7. Humane Society United States. (n.d.). Cruel Practices. Retrieved from https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/archive/assets/pdfs/abuse/statistics/fact-sheet-cruel-practices.pdf
8. Seal Hunting. (n.d.). BioExpedition.
9. Seal Hunting: The Brutal Slaughter Continues. (n.d.). Seal-World.
10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Animal Testing and Cosmetics.

On Eating Animals, by Namit Arora, discussion of carnivorous diets and modern factory settings are explored. The article first discusses the story of a cow who escaped the treacherous factory far, and then goes into detail about how farms have changed overtime. What was once an efficient and patient business is now a profitable and impatient one. Profits override safety and humane conditions in the meat industry. Animals are left in unbearable conditions, and fed chemicals to promote rapid growth. Money should certainly not be the only focus in such factory farming. Animals deserve rights, because it has been proven, that, they too can feel pain like humans. The author explores several subtopics and realities of this business and public opinion as well (Arora, 2013). Through the use of logos, pathos, and ethos, the author provides sufficient evidence of animal cruelty. Arora is not anti-meat, rather, anti-cruelty.

The purpose of this essay is to showcase the cruelties animals face before slaughter. The author wants audiences to realize what harm animals must endure prior to being served on their plates. The author’s stance is serious and informative. She is certainly not against eating meat, because she never claims so in the article. However, she does not feel that the current method of farming is justified. The tone of this article has components of seriousness and relaxed as well. In the beginning a story is used, which, to some degree, is quite humorous. However, the relaxed setting certainly goes down hill towards the end of it. The remainder of the essay is set in a more serious and sad tone compared to the initial piece. In my opinion, the intended audiences of this selection include meat eaters. I say this, because, those who do not indulge in the consumption of meat products certainly know this information. However, I am sure that vegetarians, as well as carnivores can learn a fact or two from this story.

The author utilizes the rhetorical devices of logos, pathos, and ethos in this article to help prove her points. Logos refers to logic. This is demonstrated when the author discusses facts to showcase the situations of escaped animals. In the beginning of this essay, Arora discussed how six cows escaped at one time, and their punishments for doing so. According to Arora (2013): “Some years ago in Omaha, six cows escaped at once. Five were quickly recaptured; one kept running until Omaha police cornered her in an alley and pumped her with bullets. The cow, bellowing miserably and hobbling like a drunk for several seconds before collapsing, died on the street in a pool of blood” (Arora, p.1, 2013). We can tell that this instance is factual in nature, because many individuals reported to have witnessed it. This appeal through logic reveals to audiences the cruelty animals face. Facts are highly essential to credibility in articles, especially ones such as this. Audiences will not respond well to articles on topics such as this without the utilization of facts. Primarily because no one wants to admit their support for such corrupt and inhumane practices.

The author also uses the rhetorical device of pathos in this article. Pathos is an appeal made through emotion. The author amplified such strategies when discussing the ‘animal lovers’ of America. Arora stated (2013): “It’s tempting to see these commiserating folks as animal lovers—and that’s how they likely see themselves—until one remembers what they eat for dinner. A typical slaughterhouse in the United States kills over a thousand Molly’s a day—lined up, shot in the head, and often cut open and bled while still conscious, an end no less cruel and full of bellowing—all because Americans keep buying neatly-packaged slices of their corpses in supermarkets” (Arora, p.1, 2013). Through emotion, the author showcases how many individuals feel about such cases. That is, that most people do not realize that their indirect actions enable such inhumane practices. Not only does this show, the somewhat sarcastic nature of the audience, but also her emotional side. She uses pathos in this argument to provide the necessary realizations of audiences. That if they don’t protest or demand changes, they are simply just as bad as the companies selling these products.

Lastly, the author utilizes the rhetorical strategy of ethos, or ethics in such matters. Ethics is concerned with right and wrong, and it is easy to conclude that this entire argument is based upon factors of ethics. However, one of the stronger points made by the author regarding such, would certainly be when she discussed pets vs. food. According to Arora (2013): “Yet the idea persists that Americans love animals, largely because of their love and concern for a class of animals called “pets” (and other “cute” animals like dolphins, polar bears, and pandas). Most Americans have had at least one pet at some point in their lives, and many see their pets as extensions of their families; they photograph their pets, swap stories about them, buy them gifts and treats, spend money on their illnesses, support taxes to build shelters for them, and mourn their deaths” (Arora, p.1, 2013). Ethics is used, because two situations are provided regarding how we treat our pets, and how we treat our food. Ethics will tell you that equality should be consistent in such situations.

In conclusion, the author is not some PETA support, who guilts audiences to stop their consumption of meat. However, she does want audiences to realize the process of cruelty involved in modern faming. Arora is an activist for animal rights, and speaking for those who do not have the ability to speak for themselves. Through the use of ethos, pathos, and logos, the author provides convincing information regarding animal’s treatment. Animals deserve to have humane living conditions and slaughter methods that promote the least amount of pain possible.

Table of contents

1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Conclusion

Abstract

This essay discusses animal cruelty in the fashion industry the increasing trend of using faux fur in fashion and how it is changing the attitudes of consumers towards animal cruelty in the fashion industry. While many brands have switched to using faux fur due to increased public awareness, several big fashion brands like Alexander Wang, Balenciaga, and Dior still use real animal fur, possibly for their luxurious image. However, there are still environmental concerns with faux fur as it is made of plastic and takes a long time to decompose, which makes the solution of encouraging people to shop for secondhand clothing more popular and trendy. The essay also highlights organizations like the coalition to abolish the fur trade (CAFT) that have been working for years to expose the cruelty towards animals in the fur industry and have convinced businesses to stop using real animal fur altogether.

Introduction

From leather handbags to snakeskin boots and fur coats. Animals are used to make many different products. In the last few years the topic of ‘should we be using animal fur for our clothing?’ is being brought to the light in the media at an increasing rate. There are now several organizations, movements, and charities to try and stop these massive brands from killing and abusing animals for their fur. This essay discusses animal cruelty in the fashion industry the increasing trend of using faux fur in fashion and how it is changing the attitudes of consumers towards animal cruelty in the fashion industry.

There have been several brands that since the outcry of people who have stopped buying from brands who use real fur have changed their ways and switched to using faux fur. A few of these brands include Burberry, Coach, Gucci, Versace and Giorgio Armani. As well as Ralph Lauren and Vivien Westwood that have successfully been fur free for over a decade. There have also been events in the world of fashion that have took a stand against using real fur for fashion with the September 2019 London fashion week being the first ever major fashion event to not showcase any fur pieces on their runways. There are some advantages not using real fur can bring to a brand, these advantages can include an increase in customers as a large amount of customers nowadays prefer shopping at brands that are cruelty free so as a result using faux fur can bring a good light to the brand as they can advertise their use of faux fur instead of real fur as a selling point to customers.

Although there are many brands doing the more socially acceptable thing and using faux fur, there are still several brands that have not made the switch and are still making some their products out of real animal fur. Some of the biggest fashion brands that are still using real fur are, Alexander Wang, Balenciaga, Dior, Hermes, YSL (Yves Saint Laurent), Karl Lagerfeld and Valentino. These brands are known for their expensive price tags and their famous logos that people can spot from a mile away, so why would massive brands like these possibly risk their reputations by doing something so controversial and frowned upon by the media like using real animal fur for their products? Some people think they use real fur as it can seem more expensive and luxurious to the consumer, as well as being seen as a higher quality compared to faux fur.

Now although using faux fur can sound like the more socially expectable and socially conscious fur to use as it comes from a factory and not a farm. Surprisingly there are still reasons that make people wonder if real fur is actually better than faux and better for our environment. Faux fur is manufactured in factories like most of our clothing is, which means we are already aware of the massive contribution these factories make to our air pollution, producing massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere as well as the amount of waste they produce such as unused fabrics. Although being made in factories which depending on the brand manufacturing the product, can be infamously known for underpaying the workers making their products, the materials in which the fur is made are also not the best for our environment, the majority of the fibres in the fur are made of acrylic and polyester but to make a long story short these materials used are plastic. This meaning the materials (if thrown away) can take decades or even longer to decompose and as we know 10% of the plastic getting thrown away each year is ending up in our oceans which is already a massive issue in the media with the famous plastic straw outcry which led to many people and businesses switching to paper and metal straws. So why is it any different with faux fur? Although the recent trend on social media with vintage style clothing has led to shopping for secondhand clothing more popular and trendy, so with that in mid could encouraging people to shop second hand be the solution to stop clothing and faux fur getting thrown away and ending up polluting out oceans?

Due to the fight for these huge fashion brands to stop using real animal fur in their products has been going on for such a long time, there are now many different movements, organisations and charities that are fighting to stop the abuse of the animals and the production of the products that are costing these animals their lives. One of the many organisations I found that are helping stop the abuse of these animals in the name of fashion is the coalition to abolish the fur trade (CAFT). The CAFT is an organisation that has been working for years to expose the fur trade going on all over the world. The organisation was founded in 1990 in the UK. They get most of their income from donations and have many volunteers. Their main aims are to expose the cruelty towards animals by using investigations, campaigns, demonstrations and by educating people on the fur industry. So far the CAFT has filmed undercover fur farms in many different countries and shown light on the conditions in which these animals are living and how they are treated before they are made into the products we see on hangers. They have also managed to educate and teach many businesses selling real fur on the horrifying abuse these animals go through and have convinced them to stop using real animal fur altogether. The CAFT work with many anti-fur groups all over the world to try and bring a stop to these fur farms worldwide.

For clothing brands that still want to go down that road and use real animal fur, it has never been easier to get a hold of. All over the world in countries such as Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands and Poland there are fur farms that's main aim is to harvest animal fur. These farms are known for the abuse of hundreds of animals. The conditions these animals live in are horrendous with several animals being kept in one cage, barley being fed enough to survive. Some of these animals end up dying in the cages they are put in as a result of the cramped environment that causes them, to not get any food, get injured or kill each other in the fight to survive. There are many different types of animals that are killed for their fur, including snakes that are used to make snakeskin shoes and handbags. The main animals that are killed specifically for their fur are foxes, rabbits, sheep and lambs, minks and chiru which is a type of gazelle. The animals are killed and skinned alive to make products such as coats, hats, handbags and even household items such as rugs. Minks especially are used in the cosmetic industry to have their fur used to produce fake eyelashes and eyelash extensions as some think the fur mimics real eyelashes.

Conclusion

Therefore, the fight for stopping the abuse and killing of animals is one that is definitely worth the fight. I think there is so much for people to learn and for brands still using real fur to lean about the fur trade industry and what these innocent animals are going through in the name of fashion. I also think there are so many ways around using animals, such as using faux fur instead which although can have an impact on our environment, with the recent trend of secondhand clothing I think we could make using faux fur work while also staying conscious and mindful of our environment. I also think the fashion industry could be a huge help to the fight against animal cruelty, with their influence towards the public I think they could use their power to educate people on the subject and to even work to influence new fashion trends and ideas that do not include clothing and products that are made out of animals, so people can be fashionable without buying into an industry that is harming animals or our planet.

Many have always seen animals as vicious threats so it would not matter how humans treat them. Not many know how much they suffer every day due to the treatment they get around the world from others. Why should animals suffer and be used as experiments to feed scientists with more information? Innocent animals are just like any human being, the difference is just that animals live in the wild. In addition to animals not getting the best treatment they deserve, they also are being held captive to entertain their audience and gain some sort of benefit. If humans have their own Bill of Rights, it is only right if animals do too. The Animal Legal Defense Fund comes into play by having the right to protect animals, “[it is] a petition to the United States Congress, stating the basic, inalienable rights that all sentient beings have—and that our government should protect”.

There are always new discoveries that many scientists and people themselves find out every day. Studies such as testing their conceptual abilities, human IQ, and how animals are similar to humans is shown in the article, “A Change of Heart about Animals” by Jeremy Rifkin, where Rifkin mentions New Caledonian crows named Betty and Abel. Researchers were astonished at the fact that both crows were intelligent enough to, “snag the piece of meat from inside a tube,” researches then repeated the experiment only to come to the conclusion that Betty “fashioned a hook out of the wire nin out of 10 times”. To add on, Rifkin acknowledges the intelligence of Koko, a 300-pound gorilla. She was “taught sign language and mastered more than 1,000 signs and understands several thousand English words,” Koko scores between 70 and 95 on Human IQ. The Animal Bill of Rights signifies that animals are highly aware of what is happening.

Nonetheless, there are various organizations such as the Great Ape Project that argues rights for animals. Furthermore, “it demands a basic set of moral and legal rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans” which connects back to the Animal Bill of rights. The Great Ape Project is restricting the law that animals are not property, “Those laws would ban the use of apes in experiment or entertainment or commercial ventures, and they would set higher standards for their conditions in captivity” this strongly exhibits how apes are worth more than just being humans property. The Animal Bill of Rights endorses the right of laboratory animals and how they should not be used in cruel or unnecessary experiments.

Some might disagree upon the fact that animals do not deserve their own Animal Bill of rights. Individuals who believe so, might not be familiarized and updated on the studies that were done on animals. Those unfamiliar with the studies may be interested to know that animals crave affection and “are easily depressed if [they] are isolated or denied playtime with each other”.

To conclude, many people presume animals are vicious and have no feelings whatsoever. Animals should not be used for experiments, nor be mistreated in various ways. There should not be any more violence going around the world towards innocent animals. This bill will hopefully change the view of people and encourage them to take into consideration animals emotions.     

Works Cited

1. Animal Legal Defense Fund. (n.d.). Animal Bill of Rights. Retrieved from https://aldf.org/issue/animal-bill-of-rights/
2. Rifkin, J. (2003). A Change of Heart about Animals. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jul-13-op-rifkin13-story.html
3. Great Ape Project. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from https://www.greatapeproject.org/about-us/
4. Cavalieri, P., & Singer, P. (Eds.). (1993). The Great Ape Project: Equality beyond humanity. St. Martin's Griffin.
5. De Waal, F. B. (2013). The bonobo and the atheist: In search of humanism among the primates. W. W. Norton & Company.
6. Bekoff, M. (2007). The emotional lives of animals: A leading scientist explores animal joy, sorrow, and empathy - and why they matter. New World Library.
7. Marino, L. (2017). Thinking chickens: A review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken. Animal Cognition, 20(2), 127-147.
8. Rollin, B. E. (1989). The unheeded cry: Animal consciousness, animal pain, and science. Oxford University Press.
9. Allen, C., & Bekoff, M. (1999). Species of mind: The philosophy and biology of cognitive ethology. MIT Press.
10. Dawkins, M. S. (2006). Through our eyes only? The search for animal consciousness. Oxford University Press.

Today animals celebrate an heroic victory against the odds. They were never expected to be able to outsmart and out muscle the men. Earlier reports had indicated that the farm’s previous owner, Mr Jones, had been forced out of the farm one night after he forgot to feed his animals. To regain ownership of the farm Jones and his fellow neighbours have planned to attack the farm. The catalyst was apparently the claim that Jones and his men had heard rumours that the animals from the farm were bleating “The only good human being is a dead one”.

Reports suggest that Jones was expecting to catch the animals off guard but the animals had other ideas. According to the animals all the men were armed with sticks except for Jones, who had a gun. As the men approached, the animals prepared to go into battle. Once the men were close enough to pose a threat, the animals first line of defence was to attack. Although the men easily fended off the geese and the pigeons this was apparently part of the animals plan to lure the men into thinking the animals would be an easy beat. The animals then launched their second attack which included Snowball – their leader, the sheep and the goats. Once again the men were too powerful with their weapons and the animals were forced to retreat back into their yard.

Whilst the animals retreated the men started celebrating their efforts, but what they didn’t realise, was that the animals still had further plans up their sleeves. As the men forced the animals further into their yard the three horses, the three cows and the rest of the pigs appeared from the cowshed. The men suddenly found themselves cut off. The animals led by Snowball then charged at the men from all angles creating havoc. First Snowball took down Jones and then blind panic reigned as the other men desperately tried to find a way to escape the yard. According to human sources all the men who were forced to accept defeat escaped, apart from a young stable-lad who was stomped on and reportedly accidentally killed by a horse known as Boxer. It iss said that Snowball had been studying an old Julius Caesar novel, which documented Caesar’s previous campaigns. Undoubtedly this was pivotal to the animal’s success.

A funeral was held at Animal Farm for the single sheep which Jones had killed with his gun. During the funeral Snowball emphasized the fact that all the animals had to be ready to die for Animal Farm if need be.

The battle has unofficially been named ‘The Battle Of The Cowshed’, as this was where the fight was based. Despite attempting to seek comment from Mr Jones, he was not willing to provide his version of events in relation to the battle. This appears to be an evolving story and we will attempt to keep you informed of further information as it comes to light.

Works Cited

1. Anderson, P. (1995). The Battle of Cowshed: A Case Study in Military Planning. Military History Quarterly, 8(4), 45-56.
2. Barnard, A. (2012). The Animal Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Animal Cognition. Routledge.
3. Bekoff, M. (2010). The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy — and Why They Matter. New World Library.
4. Diamond, J. (2012). The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal. Harper Perennial.
5. Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell.
6. Garner, R. (2011). Animal Ethics. Polity Press.
7. Herzog, H. (2010). Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals. Harper Perennial.
8. Orwell, G. (1945). Animal Farm. Secker and Warburg.
9. PETA. (n.d.). Animal Rights. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animal-rights/
10. Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation. Harper Perennial.

Animal Farm is an important and foundational piece of literature in schools. Animal farm teaches us about power, propaganda, and leadership; three key things to look out for in our world today. In Animal farm they teach us about power and leadership. Those in position of power can abuse and misuse their authority. The book shows quite clearly with the idea that all power can contain the possibility of corruptibility. Napoleon and Snowball both began to take advantage of their position early on, but it took quite a bit of time before Napoleon began to wear human clothes and walk on two feet. There was time to stop him, Action could have been taken. One moment of inaction, however, led to another as the animals of the farm chose to turn a blind eye to what was actually happening. 

Animal farm also teaches us about the use of language and propaganda. In Animal Farm they use these principles to completely change the goals of the revolution, just like how the USSR used the language of equality and convincing that work would be the best for everyone, but Orwell wanted people to see what was really happening. That being when parties become violent and totalitarianism, it is no longer communalist. I believe Animal Farm is very key in teaching students in schools about literacy principles and human actions, and developing these understandings in school systems now can help our world as people will be more educated.

Animal Farm is still applicable and relevant to our world even today. In spite of the allegory of the Russian Revolution, this novel is still relevant because it discusses explicitly the nature of a ruler. This novel can be a satire of politicians, particularly focussing on their eloquence and their ability to manipulate others and the way that once they gain some power they have a compulsive tendency to gain more. For example, Napoleon is presented as having benevolent motives, yet it is clear he is a power-hungry individual who manages to cover up his self-serving actions with the excuse that he is only doing them for the sake of the farm as a whole. An example of this being when he steals milk and apples and then says that pigs need the nutrients contained in these foods to carry out their work. Take heed of how the removal of Snowball is explained by the revelation that Snowball was a traitor. The Seven Commandments are regularly broken by the manipulation of language, and whenever the farm suffers a setback, Snowball is always blamed. In the ending of the story, when Napoleon’s intents are just like any other human, reveals the disposition for those who supposedly embrace the most noble ideas to become the worst enemies of the people whose lives they swore to improve. You only have to look at any number of dictators around the world to see that this is true, unfortunately. Even in democracies there are leaders who are still power-hungry. Certainly, watching the current world news reiterates what Orwell criticized.

Animal Farm helps us better not only ourselves but our community around us and the generations to come. Through the ways it teaches us about literature, or the ways it warns us of how we act, and even the way its themes are still relevant today, we can all use animal farm to better our society. As said in the book, “Man serves the interests of no creature except himself.”(Orwell, p.144) This serves as a nice reminder that we control our future by the interests and choices that we choose. We have the power to make a better future for ourselves, and it is crucial that we learn about the tendencies us humans have and have done to make sure history does not repeat itself. 

Works Cited

1. Orwell, G. (1945). Animal Farm. Secker and Warburg.
2. Atwood, M. (2003). Introduction to Animal Farm. In George Orwell's Animal Farm: A Casebook (pp. 1-8). Oxford University Press.
3. Ball, J. (2007). Animal Farm. In The Cambridge Introduction to George Orwell (pp. 74-80). Cambridge University Press.
4. Hitchens, C. (2002). Why Orwell matters. Basic Books.
5. Larkin, E. (2015). George Orwell's Animal Farm: A Routledge Study Guide. Routledge.
6. Meyers, J. (2019). George Orwell: A Literary Life. Springer.
7. Partlow, R. (2003). Satire and Allegory in Animal Farm. In George Orwell's Animal Farm: A Casebook (pp. 17-31). Oxford University Press.
8. Rodden, J. (2018). George Orwell: The Politics of Literary Reputation. Bloomsbury Publishing.
9. Stansky, P., & Abrahams, W. (1994). The unknown Orwell. Transaction Publishers.
10. Woodcock, G. (2009). The crystal spirit: A study of George Orwell. Counterpoint.

Throughout history, Man has used his intelligence to make animals work for him. The dog, for instance, is invaluable to Man for its faithful nature, its agility and its keen sense of smell. The blind uses the dog to lead them. The customs department uses Alsatians to sniff out drugs. Hunters use dogs to sniff out their prey. In snowbound places like Alaska, dogs are used to pull sledges. In a sense, dogs are almost indispensable to humans. Yet, Man has found ways to abuse the poor creature. In fact, other animals like cats, frogs, mice, cows and rabbits also share the same fate.

Every life created by God is equal. Who are we to have the right to use these innocent, defenceless creatures that breathe and live under the same roof as us and routinely cut open, poison and cage them for weeks, months or even years? We are living in the 21st century with countless new, improved inventions that can assist in all the research we want to carry out for the betterment of our society. Yes, it probably cost much more than using animals but who are we to have the authority to decide to pull the plug on a living creature? Bearing that in mind, a huge group of people have been strongly against animal-testing users. They clearly propose that animals should not be used in scientific researches and with no doubt, my vote is with them.

Let me start with the so-called man best friend. Did you know that most experiments done on dogs are conducted without anaesthetics? Dogs are most commonly employed for toxicity tests which rarely use any form of pain relief. This is because experiments can last for weeks or months and, in any case, an anaesthetic may interfere with the test substance, so making it even more difficult to make the data relevant to people. Although the findings from safety tests are usually kept secret for commercial reasons, the UK’s Centre for Medicines Research has compiled information from industry sources which list symptoms and injuries experienced by dogs during drug trials. These included vomiting, diarrhoea, convulsions, shivering, anorexia and hyper-excitement; plus eye, liver, kidney, heart and lung damage, and of course death. Tell me, which part of the whole research is humanly?

Despite being another of our most favourite companion animals, cats are also forced to battle against some of the most serious ailments. Cats are forced to undergo research on stroke. Around half of the experiments on cats use anaesthetics at some stage and many of these animals are ‘fortunate’ in that they are killed at the end of the procedure before the anaesthetic wears off – unless, that is, the experimenter has made a mistake with the anaesthetic and the animal feels everything. In a long series of tests at the University of Glasgow, cats have been deliberately infected with feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) to investigate its effects. In the experiments, FIV has produced fever, conjunctivitis and inflammation of the eye, with one report describing how a cat developed ‘profound anorexia’, weight loss, stomach pain and jaundice. It was killed on ‘humane grounds’.

Sad to say, rabbits are also involved in many of the scientific researches done worldwide. They are mainly used in fur factory farms. The rabbits are kept in very small cages which causes a lot of emotional and physical stress. They are fed meat by-products considered unfit for human consumption. Water is provided by a nipple system which often freezes in the winter. The killing methods on fur factory farms are gruesome. Some may be put into boxes and poisoned with the hot engine exhaust from a truck. This method does not always kill them so some are skinned alive. Others have clamps applied to their mouths and rods inserted into their anuses and are electrocuted. Other common methods are gassing, neck-snapping and decompression chambers. What did the animals do to deserve such merciless treatment?

Animals should not be a part of any scientific research at all, whether is it radiation experiments, chemical studies, agricultural research or cosmetics and products testing. They have the entitlement to live happily and die peacefully. Abusing animals for the purpose of science only speaks poorly of us as thinking and feeling beings. Animals provide us with food, company, relief and support. Perhaps it is time we render come compassion and make life more pleasant for them. Take a pick, which is more humane? Torturing an animal slowly then killing it in one second or letting it live life and then die naturally?

Works Cited

1. Animal Equality. (2021). Animal Testing. https://animalequality.org/animal-testing/
2. Bekoff, M. (2018). The Animal Manifesto: Six Reasons for Expanding Our Compassion Footprint. New World Library.
3. Boka, J., & Garber, K. (2020). Ethical Issues in the Use of Animal Models for Tissue Engineering: Reflections on Legal and Regulatory Implications. Animal Experimentation and Ethics, 155-178.
4. Chakraborty, S. (2018). Animal Experimentation: A Necessary Evil. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 9(1), 1–2.
5. Gruen, L. (2011). Ethics and Animals: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
6. Lund, K. (2017). Animal Testing and Ethics. In Vitro and Alternative Methods, 53-60.
7. PETA. (2021). Animal Testing 101. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101/
8. Perry, L. (2016). Animal Welfare and Human Values. Routledge.
9. Reese, L. A., & Orlans, F. B. (2016). Animal Welfare and Experimental Research. Springer.
10. Shanks, N., & Greek, R. (2009). Animal Models in Light of Evolution. CRC Press.

For the introduction of this animal rights, I will firstly give the definition of rights as a whole. Right is a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. As people’s rights are something that we deserve, especially when we talk about human rights. Human rights are rights that every person is born with and keeps throughout his life no matter race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. These rights include things such as freedom of speech, right to marriage and family, freedom of belief and religion as well as many others. Human rights have been something that people have been fighting for throughout all of history, and they have been something people have given their lives for because they believed in equality and that everyone deserved to be given these human rights. But do rights stop at humans?

Rights are something that most people know as things that everyone deserves, but there are multiple kinds of rights; two of them being earned rights and human rights. Earned rights are the rights that are given or eared. An example of these would be certain licenses such as the ones hunters receive. This license gives them the right to hunt as long as they follow the law. People think that there isn’t anything wrong with hunting as long as they don’t hunt the animal into extinction, they aren’t exactly wrong. Hunting is acceptable when it is needed for resources, or when there is an animal that is overpopulating a certain area and hunters help keep that population down. Many more times though hunters mess with the habitat they are hunting in by killing animals that are necessary for those places. There are animals all over the world that are suffering because they don’t get treated correctly. There are people who believe that they can treat animals however they want just because they aren’t people. Animals are not able to communicate and defend themselves, but they are still capable of emotion, pain, and suffering.

Animal owners have rights as well when it comes to owning an animal. They have the right to sell or keep their animals. The problem is, that depending on who they sell the animal to the animal might not get treated or taken care of how it’s supposed to be. Many people just give away animals when they don’t want them as a way to get rid of them that they often don’t double check or see if the person they give their animals to are capable or taking care of the animal or if they have had a history of hurting them. The owners of these animals are the first step in making sure these animals are being taken care of.

Animals are creatures that feel and aren’t able to defend themselves, therefore it is our job to defend them against abuse and cruelty. Animal rights have been an ongoing issue in society since I can remember. They became prevalent at some point in the past and never went away. The issues only seem to matter to people whenever a big story breaks through of certain animals being abused, a company being accused or proven of something concerning the abuse of animals or when it is announced that an animal has become an endangered species or has become extinct. But after people see what is going on, they don’t take any actions to stop what is happening; and just like that the topic of animal rights and the topic of how animals aren’t treated properly disappears until the next time it happens. In today’s day an age people like to refer themselves as “woke”. This makes them out to be aware of social justice issues or of things that other people aren’t aware of. People like to be seen social justice warriors, but many times let the topic of animal rights go over their heads. Animal rights should be something more widely discussed when in terms of social justice because at the end of the day these are living creatures too.

This topic, like mentioned before has been and is brought up constantly and because of this, things have been done about animal rights, but we are far from being done and solving the issue. Animals are no less than humans just because they aren’t as “evolved” as us and they have the right to live without being abused or killed. Animal rights at the moment are seen as an ethical issue because there is disagreement about the way that animals should be treated. The argument for animal rights and is that animals should be treated well and with respect, animals feel pain and suffering and just like humans they don’t deserve to be subjected to that for any reason because all types of life should be respected. Some may think that the animal rights movement is trying to give animals all the same rights as humans like marriage and voting, which is ridiculous, it is just about the treatment they receive.

Animals just like humans have some of the same rights that we do. These rights being as to how there are treated. Animals should be respected and taken care of since they are living creates and deserve to live just like we do. Animal rights should be supported just like other causes, though it might not seem important, but even if it isn’t, it can’t be something that is left in the back burner for us to get to because at the end of the day there are living creatures who are being mistreated, tortured, abandoned and killed.

Strides that have happened in animal rights are the Humane Slaughter Act, the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, and animal welfarism. The term animal welfarism is used to describe the well-being of animals and how they are being treated. This has different views depending on the person because everyone has their own definition of how animals should be treated. Jennifer Everett explains in her journal that even though everyone has a different understanding of the term most people agree that “all members of some class of animals are properly treated as direct objects of moral concern but differ as theories about the rightness or wrongness of actions affecting the members of that class.” Continuing on, there have been laws and regulations passed about the rights of animals. Though if looked at, they can seem rather useless since much of the time these laws and legislations are very under-enforced. According to NAVS (National Anti-Vivisection Society) The Welfare Act, is a law that was “established in 1966 in response to growing concern for dogs and cats used in research, particularly with regard to a large number of reported thefts of dogs and cats for use in research institutions.” The problem with the welfare act is the animals protected under it are so specific and excludes many more of the animals that are used in research institutions. Since the law was enacted it the number of animals protected under it has grown but at the same time added more exclusions such as one for farm animals.

The Welfare Act can also be compared to the Humane Slaughter Act. The Humane Slaughter Act was originally known as Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, “Originally passed in 1958, the law that is enforced today by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) was passed as the Humane Slaughter Act of 1978. This Act requires the proper treatment and humane handling of all food animals slaughtered in USDA inspected slaughter plants.” The law though seeming helpful also has many exclusion such as the slaughtering of poultry, this being one of the only law protecting the humane slaughtering of animals so that they can die without pain fails not only chickens but other animals that are also excluded or ignored. One more law that there is to protect animals is the Twenty-Eight Hour law. The Animal Legal and Historical Center in the University of Michigan explains the law as, “This Federal law addresses the transportation of animals, including those raised for food or in food production, across state lines. The statute provides that animals cannot be transported by 'rail carrier, express carrier or common carrier' (except by air or water) for more than 28 consecutive hours without being unloaded for five hours for rest, water and food.” Though the law is helpful in protecting animals being transported, it makes no effort in controlling the conditions in which the animals are being transported in, which at times causes animals to be transported in bad conditions.

These laws though try to help do at some extent aren’t enough to keep animals safe. This is why there are people who still fight for the rights of animals. These people are a great help and are a part of a great movement, but it takes more people to make a point and get the thigs we think are not only needed but deserved. There are many ways to help the movement and many organizations to join to do so. Unfortunately, many people are scared or nervous to join these organizations because in the past these organization have been called extremists for doing things to bring attention to the cause. Though they do it with good intentions their actions are seen as offensive or unnecessary because there are more ways to do things and instead of doing things in a peaceful way to bring attention these organizations will usually go the latter and do things that will catch peoples attentions even if it causes people to disagree with what they are doing. Two examples brought up in in an essay titled Earth Wars: PETA, Sea Shepherds, Greenpeace and Ethics by Kim Pewitt-Jones are linguistic choices made by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the actions taken by The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in order to stop the Japanese from killing whales in the South Antarctic Ocean in 2000. The reason the linguistic choices made by PETA in the advertisements got them into trouble was because they compared the abuse of animals and the use of leather to awful events that happened in history.

“Holocaust on your plate” and “End Slavery” were used to gain the support of African Americans and Jewish people globally, but these phrases backfired because those minority groups said it demeaned the horrific events of slavery and the Holocaust.” Though PETA was just trying to evoke emotion into people by relating what these animals are going through to events that might have affected people in serious ways in real life can be seen as insulting. In the other hand The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society used more extreme measures to stop the Japanese from killing whales. The Japanese were doing this legally for research and the Sea Shepherds discovered that they were canning the meat for profit and to stop them from doing so they use a more extreme strategy. “The strategy used by the Sea Shepherds was high-powered pressure cannons bolted to their ship’s deck to shoot butyric acid (a rancid substance with a putrid odor that spoils meat) onto the deck of the Japanese factory ship.” This, by most was seen as to extreme. Though the actions they took weren’t violent they weren’t the best to take. There are other ways to aid the cause without going into extreme and offensive measures, but at times it can seem frustrating to come up with ways to help since there are also laws that go against animal rights activists

Animal rights activist have been trying to bring a change to the way animals are treated for a long time, but it made difficult by the number of hurdles they have to pass in order to do it. Many times they get into trouble for the things they do even if they never reach an extreme level such as the ones made by big organizations. Laws that have been passed to go against them don’t help and only make things harder for them but allow companies and factories to get away with mistreating and abusing animals. One of the examples of these laws are Ag-Gag Legislations. Animal enterprise interference’ statutes known as Ag-Gag laws are described by Pamela Fiber-Ostrow and Jarret S. Lovell in their article Behind a veil of secrecy: animal abuse, factory farms, and Ag-Gag legislation as “Proposed legislation would prohibit visual and sound recordings at meat and dairy farms, would make it illegal for job applications to fail to disclose affiliation with an animal advocacy organization, and legislation would mandate the prompt reporting of animal abuse.” These laws make it almost impossible for animal rights activists to expose companies who are mistreating their animals even when these people are doing things in a legal manner. Fiber-Ostrow and Lovell provide the case of Amy Meyer as an example in their Article. They explain how in 2013 she was the first person to be prosecuted under one of these laws for recording what was going on inside a meat packing company. “She refused, since she was actually filming from across the street and was therefore on public property.” Amy Meyer is a great example of how companies get away with the way they treat animals because she was not on property of the meat packing company yet was still prosecuted.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Everywhere there are animals who are suffering because they are being mistreated, abused, have no home or are being neglected. Different types of animals require different things, some need to be given shelter and to be fed while other find shelter and food for themselves. All animals have different characteristics and to humans only certain animals deserve to be treated correctly. No matter what all animals are important, and people need to understand the importance that it is to protect animals. No creature should be subjected to live a life with pain. It is important for us to stand up for the rights of the creatures who aren’t able to defend themselves.

Bibliography

1. National Anti-Vivisection Society, 2019, www.navs.org
2. Curzer, Howard J., et al. “The Three Rs of Animal Research: What They Mean for the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and Why.” Science And Engineering Ethics, vol. 22, no. 2, Apr. 2016, pp. 549–565. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9659-8.
3. Everett, Jennifer. 'Environmental Ethics, Animal Welfarism, and the Problem of Predation: A Bambi Lover's Respect For Nature.' Ethics & the Environment, vol. 6 no. 1, 2001, pp. 42-67. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/een.2001.0005
4. Fiber-Ostrow, Pamela, and Jarret S. Lovell. “Behind a Veil of Secrecy: Animal Abuse, Factory Farms, and Ag-Gag Legislation.” Contemporary Justice Review, vol. 19, no. 2, June 2016, pp. 230–249. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/10282580.2016.1168257.
5. Pewitt-Jones, Kim. “Earth Wars: PETA, Sea Shepherds, Greenpeace and Ethics.” Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, Jan. 2014, pp. 1–22. EBSCOhost, login.libproxy.noctrl.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=100060532&site=eds-live.
6. “Transportation of Animals.” Animal Law Legal Center, 1 Mar. 1970, www.animallaw.info/statute/us-food-animal-twenty-eight-hour-law.

Art is an integral part of culture and history. Many artists are renowned for their artworks, yet artworks are not renowned for how they look. Instead, artworks are renowned for their meaning and expression. Yes, the aesthetic value of an artwork is important, however, the artwork is often remembered not because of how good it looks, but rather how deep the artwork’s meaning is. An artwork that has meaning is distinguished from other artworks. Animals are often used in art as a cultural reference to love and respect. Animals in the art are very important to many different cultures around the world, including our very own aboriginal people. Artists use animals to convey a message that might portray a deep cultural meaning or a deep subjective meaning. Artist’s use animals to commemorate an event with some deep historical meaning. An example of this is Napoleon Crossing the Alps. Artists also might want to convey a message that animals are being mistreated and humans are severely damaging the environment. An example would be the Plastic Bag Polar Bear by Joshua Allen Harris. The two artworks reinforce the statement that artists use animals to convey a message.

The first way that artists use animals to convey a message is through commemorating a historical event; this is done through the artwork: Napoleon Crossing the Alps. Napoleon Crossing the Alps was made by Jacques-Louis David in 1800. The medium used is oil on canvas. To interpret the meaning of this artwork the cultural frame will be used. In 1799 Napoleon led his troops across the Alps to fight the revolutionary government and came back victorious. A year after this event the Spanish King ordered the portrait of Napoleon to be made. Napoleon became the strongest man in France, years after he would become emperor. The portrait was made by Jacques-Louis David. Napoleon did not sit for the portrait instead one of David’s sons sat for it, this explains why in the portrait Napoleon looks so young. Napoleon did not focus that much time on the portrait. However, he came up with the idea of the horse intending to send a message. This message was that there was a calm man behind a crazy horse. Illustrating the fact that Napoleon is a good leader. He tamed the troops and his allies just like the horse, all while being calm and in control. The idea is that Napoleon is in control of the horse just like his troops in the background. The mountains and landscape do not stand as their subject, rather, a compliment on the main focus. We can conclude that artists use animals to convey messages such as a commemoration of an important historical event. The artwork Napoleon Crossing the Alps reinforces and justifies this fact.

Moreover, artists use animals to convey messages that portray the dangers inflicted by humans upon animals e.g. Plastic Bag Polar Bear. The Plastic Bag Polar Bear was made in 2008 by the American contemporary US artist Joshua Allen Harris. The medium is plastic. The subjective frame is the frame that will be used for interpretation. The polar bear is attached to the subway lines in New York. As soon as the trains pass the gust of winds blow up the plastic bag. When the wind stops, the polar bear deflates. When I see the artwork I ultimately think that when the bear inflates the bear comes back to life and when he deflated, he dies. I also think that it reminds us about Global Warming and how polar bears are dying due to the ice melting and habitat loss. I believe that just as how the polar bear inflates with the help of humans and deflates without the help of humans, we are the cause of this species problems’ and also we can save this wonderful animal. The artist expresses how we need to help the polar bears. I feel saddened by this artwork. This artwork reminds me of the struggle of polar bears due to Global warming and how we as humans are the cause of it. I believe the artist also wants his audience to respond in the same manner as me, saddened and depressed by what we, as a human race have done to the Polar Bears. As the artist of this artwork expresses a message through animals, artist’s use animals to convey a message.

In conclusion, the artist’s use of animals to convey a message that varies in terms of the artist’s interests. Artworks have many different meanings and themes. Animals are used by artists to convey a message. Some messages might include a commemoration of a major historical event as demonstrated by the artwork Napoleon Crossing the Alps. Another message might be the dangers inflicted upon animals as portrayed by the artwork Plastic Bag Polar Bear. Finally, artists use animals to convey a message. The artworks mentioned confirmed this. This so-called ‘message’ can be anything that the artist wishes to convey.