July 25, 2005
THEN I ATE SOME MORE GRASS... (via Robert Schwartz):
Breaking from the pack: History from a wolf's perspective? or a cow's? A new breed of thinkers looks beyond Homo sapiens (ALEX LICHTENSTEIN, 7/01/05, Houston Chronicle)
Forty years ago, in an intellectual revolution that accompanied the other revolts of the '60s, historians began to study the lives of working people, immigrants, women, African-Americans, Chicanos and other marginalized groups. The masses of ordinary people, previously treated as bit players in a drama staged by kings and statesmen, moved to the center of the stage.More recently, historians have tried to assess the interior lives of other groups whose history has often been told through the voices of others -- gays in a society that privileges heterosexuality, for example, or colonial subjects of imperial states.
But once the subjective perspective of nearly every human group on the planet has become part of written history, what remains? Well, animals. Yes, what's new in history? The animal turn. Thirty years ago, in an attempt to parody the new social history, "Charles Phineas" (a pseudonym) wrote a mock essay in which he proclaimed that the history of household pets remains too much the history of their masters, revealing more about the owning society than the owned. Little did Professor Phineas imagine that a new generation of historians would eventually produce scholarship that addressed his mock complaint.
No doubt Fox News and Rush Limbaugh will have a field day with this one, but in fact animals have their own subjective history, too.
Animals are objects, not subjects. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 25, 2005 5:35 PM
Cowz Rool.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 25, 2005 6:07 PMAn old history prof I had in the 60's used to say that the history of pre-literate cultures was like Greek history before Homer, or, when he was really exercised on the matter, like penguin history.
Once they start calling ethnic legends history, penguin history is not far behind.
Posted by: Lou Gots at July 25, 2005 6:29 PMRTWT, It's beyond parody.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 25, 2005 6:34 PMEvery object is subjective ... some objects more than others.
Posted by: ghoscat at July 25, 2005 8:53 PMNone are. Only men are subjects and only because made in God's image.
Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 9:08 PMI for one welcome our new bovine masters.
Posted by: joe shropshire at July 25, 2005 9:31 PMOJ, if I understand/remember/intuit right, you would also argue that human affection for pets is legitimate, and arbitrary cruelty to animals is illegitimate; if so, could you provide a brief "bright-line" summary of the distinction?
Posted by: Guy T. at July 25, 2005 9:43 PMOf course pets have their own subjective history. We've got the "Homeward Bound" and "101 Dalmations" movies to prove it.
Posted by: Dave W. at July 25, 2005 9:56 PMMy human forgot to mention "Home On The Range".
Posted by: Rollie Jackson of Gracehaven at July 25, 2005 9:58 PMG-d made every thing in "his" image.
Posted by: ghostcat at July 25, 2005 10:40 PM"More recently, historians have tried to assess the interior lives of other groups whose history has often been told through the voices of others -- gays in a society that privileges heterosexuality, for example, or colonial subjects of imperial states"
Sentences like that are a sign of diseased mind.
Posted by: carter at July 25, 2005 11:13 PMcarter:
On the bright side the comparison to animals is un-PC
Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 11:14 PMCruelty to animals dehumanize us, the animal is incidental.
Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 11:16 PMAt least you're not insisting that the female of our species is an object. One could ... and many have ... on the grounds that she differs from the patriarch.
Posted by: ghostcat at July 25, 2005 11:56 PMif i recall, according to the legend of the great deluge, god thought animals somewhat more than incidental. perhaps his view has changed, though i tend to think not. {POOF}
Posted by: lonbud at July 26, 2005 12:02 AMghost:
Women too are made in His image, even if not fully equal to men.
Posted by: oj at July 26, 2005 12:07 AMlonbud:
He gave us dominion over them. Though that does impose responsibilities on us to not use them in a profligate manner, it does make them objects.
Posted by: oj at July 26, 2005 12:19 AMFully equal in the eyes of g-d, Mr. Robinson. Better by some objective human criteria, inferior by others.
Posted by: ghostcat at July 26, 2005 12:33 AMThis animal chauvinism must stop. It's time we told history from the point of view of bacteria. (By the standards of "the greatest good for the greatest number," bacteria are the proper rulers of the world.)
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at July 26, 2005 2:23 AMThanks OJ.
Posted by: Guy T. at July 26, 2005 7:06 AMThere is a nice history of the world to be written from the cows point of view, making the point that they have been the dominate life form on the planet ever since they domesticated us.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 26, 2005 8:31 AMDavid: Its the Cats
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 26, 2005 10:11 AMWe saw March of the Penguins. Highly entertaining, Highly reccomended. Makes you feel colder on a hot summer night.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 26, 2005 10:14 AMDogs rule, Cats are too self absorbed, and Cows are bioterrorists (their methane bombs and all).
Posted by: Dave W. at July 26, 2005 11:25 AMWith dogs and cats, we're just recapitulating our own creation by the sacred cows.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 26, 2005 1:16 PMIncidentally, If you see March of the Penguins [correct URL this time] you will be absolutely sure there is no such thing as random natural selection.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 26, 2005 4:18 PM