"Faces of the Enemy"

Thought folks might be interested in these articles - I found them relevant to film - how they illustrate prejudice, propaganda and the language of warfare. Here's the link for 1-3.

(1.) Racist Cartoon Targets Seminole Tribe

In Davie Florida, the mayor has denounced a cartoon as racist that a member of the town’s planning board circulated. Davie Mayor Tom Treux charged Karen Stenzel-Nowicki with sending around a cartoon depicting Seminole Leader Max Osceola as shirtless and banging on a drum as his canoe passes the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino. A local councilwoman is depicted at the other end of the boat, with the words “open space princess” tattooed on her arm and a cocktail in hand. Treux said Stenzel-Nowicki denied drawing the cartoon, but he is calling for her removal for circulating it. The town council postponed a decision last night on whether to remove her. Stenzel-Nowicki is defending her actions as her constitutional right to free speech. According to the Miami Herald, Osceola hasn’t seen the cartoon and he said he doesn’t need to. He said “They’re stereotyping natives. They think every native lives in a tepee and has drums as a musical instrument. That’s the uneducated nonnative trying to stereotype us.”


(2.) Confronting Stereotypes in "The New World", Shattering the Myth of Pocahontas - Camilla Townsend, Associate Professor of History at Colgate University. (February 2, 2006)

The film "The New World" attempts to retell the mythical story of Pocahontas and John Smith as a passionate love story, with the settlement of the Jamestown colony taking place in the backdrop.
Few reviews have criticized the film for perpetuating racist and sexist stereotypes, suggesting these ideas are so enmeshed in American culture that they are overlooked without protest. (found this intriguing)


(3.) On Indians and Patriotism - May 5, 2005 (Indian Country Today, April 28, 2005) Steven Newcomb is the indigenous law research coordinator at Kumeyaay Community College on the Sycuan Indian Reservation, co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, and a columnist for Indian Country Today.

After the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, millions of Americans became more fervent in their patriotism toward the United States. In this era of the Patriot Act, those who dare to question ''patriotism'' are made to feel that they may be ''treading on thin ice.'' One American Indian leader even suggested that you can tell who a ''real'' Indian is because a ''real'' Indian is patriotic toward the United States.

This made me wonder about my own thoughts on patriotism. After considerable reflection, I have decided that because of my spiritual beliefs, and because of all that our Native ancestors have suffered at the hands of the United States, I consider myself to be a ''matriot.'' A matriot is someone who loves, is loyal to, and promotes the interests of Mother Earth. I consider myself deeply matriotic.

As a result of those who had a patriotic dedication to promoting the patriarchal interests of the American empire, entire Indian nations no longer exist: their ancestral lands that made their way of life viable were taken over by an imperial country. Look east of the Mississippi River, where highly intelligent and vibrant Indian civilizations once thrived on hundreds of millions of acres of land, with their own languages, cultures, economies and spiritual traditions. How many of those Native civilizations still exist there?

Thanks to U.S. patriotism and the Indian Removal Act, relatively few Indian nations exist east of the Mississippi, on extremely small areas of their once-vast ancestral lands. Almost all Indian nations west of the Mississippi have been squeezed into smaller areas of land, the vast majority of their ancestral lands stripped from them.

Look at all the lands where my matrilineal and matriotic Delaware ancestors once lived, in what is now known as Manhattan Island, Delaware, New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania. With patriotic fervor, first European colonists and later the United States took over our lands, thereby destroying our traditional world and spiritual way of life.

Think of the many thousands of years in which our respective indigenous languages evolved, accumulating knowledge and wisdom over eons. And think of all the patriotic effort that U.S. government officials and Christian missionaries dedicated to destroying our respective Native languages, right down to their cognitive roots.

In their patriotic fervor, such people had no regard for our rich heritage, only contempt for our cultural and spiritual knowledge. Their patriotic work involved an ardent and greed-laden desire to destroy us in order to fatten and enrich themselves, as ''God's chosen people,'' on our lands and resources, to which they felt eminently entitled based on the ''promised land'' narrative of their ''good book.''

Because our indigenous languages reflect our own indigenous conceptual systems, which are rooted in our brains, the systematic abuse of American Indian children by the United States in an effort to destroy our Indian languages affected those Indian children to their core. Those children were our ancestors, our aunts and uncles, our mothers and fathers, our sisters and brothers - relatives of all the members of our respective nations.

One of the things U.S. boarding schools beat into American Indian children was patriotism toward the American flag and devotion to the Bible, in part by working to make Indian children ashamed of their own Native spirituality. As a spiritual matter and as a matter of conscience, how can I feel patriotic toward a political entity that worked so hard to destroy us as distinct nations and peoples that have existed in this hemisphere for thousands and thousands of years?

However, I am extremely matriotic toward Mother Earth. Matriotism is entirely consistent with our traditional cultural and spiritual way of life. I believe that a society dedicated to the values of matriotism would honor and respect motherhood and ''the motherland.'' It would acknowledge women as a source of life. It would support women and help them to thrive and excel by powerfully nurturing their innate intelligence. It would not abuse them emotionally, physically or sexually. A matriotic society would not regard women, or men, as a kind of property.

A society dedicated to matriotism - a sacred regard for the Earth and all living things - also would not allow poisons, such as pesticides, petroleum and toxic nuclear wastes, to leach into the veins of Mother Earth.

One example of Mother Earth being poisoned is found in the town of Moab, Utah, on the edge of the Colorado River where, according to a recent report in the San Diego Union-Tribune, some 58,000 gallons of radioactive liquid leach each and every day into sacred waters upon which animals, fish and millions of people rely.

Another such example is the Columbia River. For generations, highly radioactive liquid has been leaching from decomposing steel drums at the Hanford nuclear facility into the groundwater that runs into the Columbia River and the fish that live there. Now the U.S. government plans to bury 77,000 tons of radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain in the Western Shoshone territory.

Given such patriarchal desecrations, I am content to be matriotic like my Shawnee and Delaware ancestors. As they and all our indigenous ancestors knew, we only have one Mother Earth, and we are all her children.


(4.) "40 Years On, a New Call to Resist?" Laura Flanders is the host of RadioNation and the author of Blue Grit: True Democrats Take Back Politics from the Politicians.

Forty years ago, a handful of smart Americans had an idea how to end a war. They published a call for moral, political and financial support for those refusing to serve. Initially signed by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Grace Paley, Dr. Benjamin Spock, Marcus Raskin, and the Reverend William Sloane Coffin among others, eventually, 20,000 signed on and the indispensable RESIST foundation was formed.

Listening as it was read aloud at a 40th anniversary party this weekend, "Resist: A Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority" seems as relevant as ever. How about a second Call?

The Call:

1. An ever growing number of young American men are finding that the American war in Vietnam so outrages their deepest moral and religious sense that they cannot contribute to it in any way. We share their moral outrage.

2. We further believe that the war is unconstitutional and illegal. Congress has not declared a war as required by the Constitution. Moreover, under the Constitution, treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate have the same force as the Constitution itself. The Charter of the United Nations is such a treaty. The Charter specifically obligates the United States to refrain from force or the threat of force in international relations. It requires member states to exhaust every peaceful means of settling disputes and to submit disputes which cannot be settled peacefully to the Security Council. The United States has systematically violated all of these Charter provisions for thirteen years.

3. Moreover, this war violates international agreements, treaties and principles of law which the United States Government has solemnly endorsed. The combat role of the United States troops in Vietnam violates the Geneva Accords of 1954 which our government pledged to support but has since subverted. The destruction of rice, crops and livestock; the burning and bulldozing of entire villages consisting exclusively of civilian structures; the interning of civilian non-combatants in concentration camps; the summary executions of civilians in captured villages who could not produce satisfactory evidence of their loyalties or did not wish to be removed to concentration camps; the slaughter of peasants who dared to stand up in their fields and shake their fists at American helicopters; - these are all actions of the kind which the United States and the other victorious powers of World War II declared to be crimes against humanity for which individuals were to be held personally responsible even when acting under the orders of their governments and for which Germans were sentenced at Nuremberg to long prison terms and death The prohibition of such acts as war crimes was incorporated in treaty law by the Geneva Conventions of 1949, ratified by the United States. These are commitments to other countries and to Mankind, and they would claim our allegiance even if Congress should declare war.

4. We also believe it is an unconstitutional denial of religious liberty and equal protection of the laws to withhold draft exemption from men whose religious or profound philosophical beliefs are opposed to what in the Western religious tradition have be en long known as unjust wars.

5. Therefore, we believe on all these grounds that every free man has a legal right and a moral duty to exert every effort to end this war, to avoid collusion with it, and to encourage others to do the same. Young men in the armed forces or threatened wit h the draft face the most excruciating choices. For them various forms of resistance risk separation from their families and their country, destruction of their careers, loss of their freedom and loss of their lives. Each must choose the course of resistance dictated by his conscience and circumstances. Among those already in the armed forces some are refusing to obey specific illegal and immoral orders, some are attempting to educate their fellow servicemen on the murderous and barbarous nature of the wa r some are absenting themselves without official leave. Among those not in the armed forces some are applying for status as conscientious objectors to American aggression in Vietnam, some are refusing to be inducted. Among both groups some are resisting o penly and paying a heavy penalty, some are organizing more resistance within the United States and some have sought sanctuary in other countries.

6. We believe that each of these forms of resistance against illegitimate authority is courageous and justified. Many of us believe that open resistance to the war and the draft is the course of action most likely to strengthen the moral resolve with whic h all of us can oppose the war and most likely to bring an end to the war.

7. We will continue to lend our support to those who undertake resistance to this war. We will raise funds to organize draft resistance unions, to supply legal defense and bail, to support families and otherwise aid resistance to the war in whatever ways may seem appropriate.

8. We firmly believe that our statement is the sort of speech that under the First Amendment must be free, and that the actions we will undertake are as legal as is the war resistance of the young men themselves. But we recognize that the courts may find otherwise, and that if so we might all be liable to prosecution and severe punishment. In any case, we feel that we cannot shrink from fulfilling our responsibilities to the youth whom many of us teach, to the country whose freedom we cherish, and to the ancient traditions of religion and philosophy which we strive to preserve in this generation.

9. We call upon all men of good will to join us in this confrontation with immoral authority. Especially we call upon the universities to fulfill their mission of enlightenment and religious organizations to honor their heritage of brotherhood. Now is the time to resist.

“The Feds' War on the Animal Rights Movement: The Casualties of Green Scare.”

This article was written by Kelly Overton, Executive Director of People Protecting Animals & Their Habitat August 3, 2007

I found this piece relevant to a number of class discussions this week - and her take on rights vs. economics, and her conclusion deserving of consideration for our topics of animal and human torture. Wanted to share, hope you enjoy.

Late last year President Bush signed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) into law days after six young Americans began serving federal prison sentences on charges they caused economic damage to Huntington Animal Sciences, an animal-testing corporation. Sadly, jailing activists is the American way.

The imprisonment of the group, known as SHAC 7, is nothing more than history repeating itself. Those who first called for an end to slavery were imprisoned. Those who believed women should vote went to jail. Civil rights activists, supporters of gay and lesbian rights, and now animal rights activists have all been jailed. The only thing sadder than the imprisonment of animal rights activists is that they are fighting for a losing cause; for we now live in a society that slaps the wrist of a person who harms the neighbor’s dog yet subsidizes the systematic annual killing of billions of other animals for food, clothing, research and sport.

The recent allegations of both illegal wire-tapping and politically motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys by the Bush administration should set off an alarm regarding the legality of the green scare; the administration’s monitoring and imprisonment of environmental and animal welfare activists. – and AETA isn’t the only new tool corporations have to eliminate pesky activism.

The NYSE’s recent decision to trade Life Sciences Research (an animal testing corporation) on the ARCA exchange—an electronic platform that provides market makers anonymity—signals that financial markets have also joined the war against social activism. With help from the Bush administration and the NYSE, we may be nearing a day when all of our country’s flora, fauna, and public land will exist as little more than raw materials for corporate profit.

The reason nonhuman animals lack protection is simply due to the economic repercussions that would accompany such protection(s). Compassionately caring for animals is expensive and by demanding corporations treat food and research animals humanely activists are asking nothing less than a fundamental reworking of the world economy.

Sadly, any further success activists achieve at home will only expedite sending corporations that mistreat animals offshore where animal welfare regulations and activism can be made non-factors.

We no longer live in a society, we live in an economy where right and wrong is determined not by fairness, but by profitability – and where the law no longer dictates corporate behavior, but corporate behavior dictates the law.

AETA, Three Strike Laws and toothless environmental regulations protect profits – not people (or animals). A society would care if animal protection activists (including the SHAC 7) were right about corporate mistreatment of animals – but in an economy only the financial cost of activism matters.

The truth is that nonhuman animals don’t need rights or legal standing Such rights have done little to improve the lives of the majority of the world’s people. For it is not just nonhuman animals that are losing their habitats and their ability to live with dignity - the majority of the planet’s humans now live truly desperate lives.

Today it is not legal, but economic standing that protects a life - and it is not a lack of rights (human, civil or animal) but a lack of empathy that is the problem; a problem that promises lives of misery and despair for an overwhelming majority of the earth’s creatures. Instead of fighting to establish rights for animals, maybe activists should work to instill compassion in humans.

As a society we need to imagine others’ horrors as our own. What if the sex worker was our child? The homeless woman our mother? The research dog our family pet? The unjustly imprisoned activist our child?

Only when we decide the pain and humiliation of others is not worth economic gain will the need for rights, human and animal, disappear.

Torture and Morality

I couldn't agree more with Chris Hedges' quote addressing U.S. support for Egypt's dictatorship, and the U.S. policy of extraordinary rendition, and torture. "The cries that rise up from these fetid cells in Egypt condemn not only the Mubarak dictatorship but the moral rot that has beset the American state."

It is hypocritical for a society to employ actions it has legislated as illegal or immoral; and for which it punishes its citizenry.

It is illogical and unreasonable for a society to employ actions it has declared illegal, or morally criminal; and for which it punishes its citizenry.

It is well documented that torture is ineffective as a method of gathering information. All information garnered through torture is highly unreliable, and highly suspect. Innocent people have been needlessly, albeit sometimes, mistakenly tortured “for the greater good.” If torture continues, then more innocent people will be tortured. I believe the question of torture, for any purpose, is a moral question, and as such, it demands that we question our morality and reflect upon our humanity (or lack thereof).

I believe the arguments of Harlan B. Miller, presented in his essay, “Science, Ethics, and Moral Status,” addressing moral status, are applicable in questioning the use of torture - for any reason. Society unequivocally grants moral status to human beings, as agents and patients.

To define moral status, moral agency, and moral patience, Miller provided a candidate list of morally significant characteristics, endorsed by most moral philosophers. They are sentience - the awareness of sensation and the ability to enjoy and to suffer, memory, a sense of self, intelligence, ability to communicate, concern for conspecifics, playfulness, and possession of an immortal soul.

I support Miller’s belief that, “all conscious living things…are entitled…to consideration, respect, and justice. Torture involves awareness of sensation, suffering, one’s sense of self and others; it affects memory, a person’s ability to communicate, to play, and to empathize with others. Torture creates a reality where sentient beings are not entitled to consideration, respect, or justice. Torture dissembles the humanity of both the torturers (moral agents), and the tortured victims (moral patients).

In any scenario involving torture, the torturer, and the society that enables the practice of torture, are the moral agents; the tortured victims are the moral patients. Moral agents owe moral patients protection from harm. Moral agency inherently obligates the agent to protect the patient. Agency disallows permission to harm, or fail to prevent harm to those of patiency status. Permitting torture assaults our morality. It destroys our humanity. It ruptures the very fabric of the society of humankind. If we should possess immortal souls while living in a society permissive of torture, then I believe we have forever scarred those immortal souls.

Human beings are proclaimed different from other sentient beings by virtue of having immortal souls; the ability to reason, and using reason in their decision-making process; by linguistically communicating well with others; for possessing the capacity for self-reflection, and reflecting on their actions, as a means of understanding and improving themselves; for our ability to be compassionate and empathetic. For all these characteristics, human beings place themselves at the apex on the scale of moral status.

Torture denies opportunities for meaningful linguistically communication. It is an obstacle to self-reflection. It is an impediment to the willingness of a society of torture to reflect on themselves.

Permitting torture defies reason, and defiles our human souls.

"To Love or To Kill: Man vs. Animal"

This documentary exposed us to the world-wide torture of animals by humans; and the explicit nature of extreme brutality that sentient beings are subjected to by we humans. What can I say after such an utterly disturbing, visceral experience?

Leaving Friday's class, four-to-five of us formed a circle in the middle of the hall. It seemed to me that we were all stunned, shocked, and horrified; drawn towards each other in an attempt to support one another through a truly shattering experience. I believe the aftermath of exposure to this documentary had pushed me into a disassociated state. I thought my mates were adrift in similar condition. I experienced us as floundering in turbulent seas, fighting to touch bottom and ground ourselves. Struggling to put this horror into some kind of context.

For me, personally, the trap and the anguish lies hidden in all the brutality of which I was either totally ignorant; or culturally conditioned into a state of nonrelatedness, a type of "ignorance is bliss" mentality. Born from my ignorance and my unquestioning acceptance of cultural norms is my complicity, responsibility, and guilt for participating in this unspeakable brutality. Perhaps, my inability to come to terms with my complicity in this horror adds to my disassociate state.

I cannot imagine any human, or animal way, to place these immoral and inhumane practices into context. I have no language - human, spiritual, or otherwise for this. After our impromtu post-class support group dispersed, I wondered if anyone would blog about this. I see that Liz and Nicole did. Yesterday, I did not have the resources to address this at all. Today, I'm still not sure what to say.

I perceive myself as powerless in this struggle against the sacrifice, abuse and slaughter of animals. Abuse insidiously encroaches into our lives, even in my home town - there is a type of "canned hunt". Earlier this year, due to the death of the owner, 80 acres adjoining the Monroe State Forest was purchased by men from Pennsylvania. They stocked the land with various species of "game" birds, some of which are exotics, and posted it with "no trespass" and "game preserve" signs. There are pheasants, the vast majority being males (being prettier than females makes them better trophies), running amok outside the "preserve". They stop traffic, or become roadkill. We worry about them starving over the winter, or causing native birds to starve. I took a picture of an exotic bird on my friend's lawn . Not only are we worried about it surviving our winters, we know that devastation to native species always follows the environmental imbalance caused when exotic species invade native habitats. From a purely selfish perspective, for the last 3 years this was my favorite place to track and research moose activity in the winter. The dogs and I can no longer safely traverse these lands. I mourn the loss of both native and exotic species, and the chance to walk those lands again.

Like Nicole, I too, believe the manner in which people dress their dogs in human clothes is outrageous, and it's too un-doglike to be healthy for them (dogs and humans, too). Yet, on occassion, when I dress for more formal activities, I have put a white collar with a black tie hanging from it on my service dog as he accompanies me. Though it was a gift from a friend, I am the one who decides whether of not, and when to outfit him in "black tie."

Like Liz, I had a life-altering, animal abuse-related childhood experience. Mine was with an elephant suffering in filth and misery at a small traveling "circus." I have spoken out against them ever since. I added horse and dog racing, rodeos, and zoos to my boycott list. The only "zoos" should be the ones where the animals range free and the humans are confined in electric trams, trains or cars, where the habitat is so extensive, that the animals can choose whether to be in sight of the humans, or not. Zoos should exist only if necessary to preserve the species. I have always been anti- trapping, hunting, fur farms, canned hunts, cockfights, bullfights, dogfights, boxing, football, etc., - against any and all practices that were restrictive or harmful to animals, that I was aware of. My ignorance blocks my awareness, prevents the possibility of my participation in vanquishing the abuse. Hence, I am part of the problem.

Like Liz, I had no idea that such a large, world-known and accepted "civilized" religion tortured animals in sacrificial rituals - or for any purpose (outside of voodoo and ritualistic cult practices). Other than bullfights, I had never heard of communities employing rituals comprised of the violent slaughtering and murdering of innocent animals, for the purpose of creating "solidarity". I found it inconceivable that a community of Americans wantonly massacre innocent animals as an expression of national identity - and that they force their chidren to participate in the suffering, mutilation, and murder of helpless victims. No words, no words.

My eyes were closed throughout all but literally, a few seconds total, of any torture shown in the film. At the first yowling of a cat, not only were my eyes closed, and my ears plugged, I also sang to myself the "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" song, down to 70 bottles - keeping the beat by tapping my foot. I thought of leaving the room more than a few times. Knowing "Pup" would get up and follow me, there was no way for me to exit without disturbing the class. I felt trapped and beyond miserable.

How can we make sense of this senselessness? I don't know. I do know, that like Liz, I would prefer to try without any more exposure to this film.

Andean cosmovision - an invitation to enter the world?

From Friday's class discussion, I wonder how this Andean peasant culture view human intuition, morality, or moral status. The article speaks to their crops, with a mention of their breeding alpacas. I did not find any reference to meat in their diet - and unfortunately, since the article appeared in a 1997 Journal - I haven't been able to access more details online. I'm particularly interested in their understanding of themselves as unified with nature, and that everything is sentient. And whether or not they are vegetarian.

Curious if we might apply concepts of morality to them - and what that might look like.

Excerpts from "Counter-Development in the Andes" by Frederique Apffel-Marglin, The Ecologist, Vol. 27, No. 26, 1997,
pp. 221-224.

"Andean peasants do not experience themselves as being apart from the rest of the inhabitants of the world.... Openness, attentiveness, receptivity and respect are the attitudes that foster conversations. The senses are not apprehended as limiting or distorted. With the beginning of experimental science, the senses were seen as "infirmities," as obstacles to correct understanding. These "infirmities" were to be remedied and enhanced by the use of experimental devices and instruments. Such denial of the senses in pursuit of knowledge can only arise in a world-view that has already separated humans from the natural world. In the Andes, rivers, mountains, lakes and rocks have eyes and ears: everything is sentient. Some mountains, lakes...animals and plants are huacas (deities). (P.223)

"What happens between the Andean communities of humans, deities, and nature is reciprocal dialogue, a relationship that does not assume any distancing and objectification between those dialoguing...Such dialogue does not lead one to a knowledge about the other, but...to emphasize and attune oneself with its mode of being...It is a dialogue... that leads [not to knowledge but] to wisdom" (p. 224)

Would we consider them philosophers and this their philosophy?

According to the author, the Andean world-view assesses modern Western knowledge from a native Andean point of view. They find Western cosmology based on a rejection of basic assumtpions about nature, the nature of humans, of knowledge, etc. The Andean peasants have been in existence for over 10,000 years, could their cosmological p.o.v. be a significant or insignificant factor in the longevity of their culture?

Implications for nonhumans after assigned moral status

Complex issue, I can't find a simple or encompassing solution - will there need to be multiple scales or degrees of application of moral status, even after designating moral patient status to nonhuman animals?

We know there are numerous cultures/societies living in extreme environments whose existence is dependent on the consumption of nonhuman animals. Some of these people are citizens of the United States, others are citizens of other Western societies.

If the Western world assigns moral patient status to nonhuman animals, how would they enforce the protection of these moral patients in their own countries? Would it be through legislation? Would there be exemptions for those who live in environments that are climatically/environmentally insufficient or prohibitive for the production of alternative food sources? How do we judge the needs of those whose cultural identity is tied to consumption of animal flesh against the need to protect those animals to whom we have assigned moral patiency?

Given ease of global communication and travel, if "civilized" Western cultures assign high moral status to nonhuman animals - what would the protocol be when intersecting with "primitive" cultures - who do not assign similar moral patient status to these nonhuman animals?

If we assign moral patiency to all animals equally, predators and prey species alike - and we come across a predator "attacking" its natural prey - are we morally obligated to intervene on behalf of the "weaker" prey species - knowing that our action could accelerate the death of the predator species?

Ethics and Moral Status in relationship to Nonhumans

After today's discussion, I think that like many of my classmates, my perspective on animals is primarily the result of personal subjective experience, interwoven with familial and cultural constructs. What I found most enriching were the discussions re:meta-cognition and moral reflection as criteria for determining moral status for nonhumans and humans. If I am interpreting correctly - adding further complexities to determing moral status are "Intuitions" (H. Miller style). Intuitions as attributes shared by humans and nonhumans arising out of inherent sociality, which in term arises out of a biological imperative for sociality (as a specie-specific survival mechanism) is also common to humans and some nonhumans.

As a result of this class I am reflecting more on my pre-existing and personally-conceived assumptions. My biases are grounded not only in my subjective experiences, but also on what "feels good to believe" - like faith or religion. Grounded in metaphysics and supernaturalism - not empiracally based in Western science.

I am unsure how to factor in some profoundly affective inter-specie encounters I consider myself blessed to have participated had with "wild" animals, "pets," and other domesticated animals. I will try to download a picture I took of a moose last Febuary, sniffing my hands and camera, he touched his muzzle to my fingers. He was so close you can clearly see his beautiful eyelashes.

Classmates shared experiences of their pets seeking to comfort them, of cats and dogs having healing effects for them. I chose to rehab from hip surgery at home rather than a nursing home, where my dogs and cats were active, integral aspects of the healing process.

Focusing on the nonhumans, I can see and admit, the possibility of these actions as biologically driven instincts, or learned behavior - via reward/punishment - or even learned through intelligent (cognitive) observation (by the nonhumans) as discussed within today's class. Still, I am not convinced, nor am I able to admit, that is the only explaination for nonhumans' capacity for inter-specie experiences. Is this purely a metaphysical attachment on my part? I think not.

Is our science too incomplete, too exclusionary in assigning meta-cognition and therefore moral status to nonhuman species where they do not share a common capacity for communication? Do humans over-rely on verbal-based language to assign competency and sufficient status to nonverbal nonhumans? Remember that movie "Nell" starring Jodi Foster? What if nonhumans could teach humans how to communicate their way? Would they then be obligated to assign the humans moral status?

I don't think nonhuman animals normally operate that way. Not that they can't be what humans commonly define as jealous, or greedy, or needy or pushy. I think it has been well established at least with dogs, that there are biologically based survival mechanisms determining those behaviours humans interpret negatively.

I thought that in moral terms, nonhumans do not suffer from non-survival related attachments the way humans do. Are they operating that way because they are morally and metaphysically superior to humans? Do they innately know or intuit the nature of the Universe. Or can it be that because they do not perceive or consider themselves as separate from the Universe - that they do not meta-cognate like humans - because they already know?

This course keeps making my mind change directions. I thought I knew and was comfortable in a paradigm that worked well for me. This course keeps fracturing my paradigms, and I can't restructure them fast enough. Not comfortable but stimulating.

l like to keep my bases covered - the old - "there are gi-normous mega-species out there who can't perceive humans because we're such mini, insignificant-to-them Beings" syndrome. If there are humans and bacteria, then why not mega-beings and humans? I like to think in terms of balance. Whenever possible I like to assign at least the possibility of mega-cognition and moral status to others, humans and nonhumans. But that criteria is tricky.