In order to make some of the connections that I pointed out in our first video, I turn to noted scholar in animal studies, Donna Haraway. In her book, When Species Meet, she writes, how would we sort things out? Canid, hominoid, pet, professor, bitch, woman, animal, human, athlete, handler. One of us has a written record of her ancestors for 20 generations. One of us does not know her grandparents' names. One of us, product of a vast genetic mixture, is called purebred. One of us, equally a product of a vast mixture, is called white. Each of these names designates a different racial discourse, and we both inherit their consequences in our flesh. It's going to be a little difficult to break down everything that Haraway is trying to tell us in this quote. But what's most important is the relationship between human and animal. And the ways in which Donna Haraway cannot talk about the relationship. Between human beings and non human animal beings. Without thinking about race and gender. Connections, to reiterate Haraway's question, how can we sort out this connection between the two cases? Two historical examples separated by over 200 years? The first case we know all too well. Or we think we do. The second is hidden from history. What can we tease out from this odd juxtaposition of two cases of human animal relationship across the history of this country. What if our investigations raise even more questions rather than resolutions? American studies and Animal studies. The complexity of these two cases, both historical examples, requires an interdisciplinary approach. This approach could take us in several directions history, we could just speak to the dates, right 1773, 2001, 2007. Sociology, we could think about sociology's approach to how humans interact with one another. Philosophy, we could think about the ethical implication of thinking through what Michael Vick's relationship with animals and for that matter other humans is. We can think through this through a cultural studies model, which is to take racing for example and think about racing not just as a history of sport in this country. But about a particular kind of sport that entailed a host of people and animals, and things and movements, and borders and people, or we could take this from the vanish point of biology. And strictly think about what is the difference between humans and animals. Public response to Michael Vick's case brought forward several common responses. Those condemning him for animal abuse, those excusing his acts because of this athletic prowess. Those condemning the media and the judicial system for singling him out because of this race. Those pointing to the violence in our culture that could lead us to use animals for violent sport. Those explaining the abuse of animals as caused by the historic relationship that African Americans have with animals because of slavery. Animal welfare, athletic prowess, race, violence, and slavery. To address the Michael Vick case, In our contemporary mode. We would therefore have to address our understandings of animals, athletes, race, and slavery. What I'm trying to say here is that none of this is really simple, that even though contemporary cases represent themselves to us providing easy answers. Michael Vick was a bad person. We actually need to really think about what it means to talk about race, about animal abuse, about class in some cases and about violence. So, this all leads us, of course, to more questions than answers. In many ways Micheal Vick's situation deserves more scrutiny. And that scrutiny begins and brings up a host of ethical questions. What is our relationship to animals in general? My first question is, why is it possible to humanly slaughter thirty-two thousand pigs a day in the state of North Carolina? Yes, thirty-two thousand for the sole purpose of eating them and not for the nutritional value. But to be indited for using dogs to fight in the same region for the sole purpose of making money. What is our real knowledge of athletes of African-American descent in this country? My first example here is why is it possible to say what Fuzzy Zoeler said about Tiger Woods or Jimmy the Greek said about Black Athens in general, and to still maintain that race. Is it a factor? And public debates about sports. What do we really know about race or for that matter,racism in this country? What would it mean to think about racial reasoning or racial exclusions in the matter of Michael Vick's case. As first, a denial of full humanity to black subjects. And simultaneously, a good reason for why the federal prosecutor chose to bring Vick and his co-conspirators up on interstate commerce, rather than animal welfare charges. The former carrying a tougher sentence. What do we really know about US slavery and the African American experience? What can we gain from knowing the fuller histories of people of African descents relationship with animal being in this country? When we whitewash our national histories we preclude the possibility of real understanding of both human and animal subjects as they go about the business of making relationships. Thus exhibiting the full range of their capacity for effective, self-determined life. In my mind, the purpose of this module is to really get us to think that while we think we know the answers to contemporary cases about the relationship among violence, animal abuse, race, slavery, and sport, we might want to delve deeper and think about the connections between, among, and within some of the work that we do. That's what we do in American studies.
