Sunday, January 17, 2010

Why not both instead of "either-or"?

The only question I had about the comment on the last post – "Animal welfare in Haiti" -- was, how fast will it arrive. The answer: “Pretty fast”!

A shame the writer has done the usual thing: assume that anyone who cares about animals does not care about humans. But the two groups are not mutually exclusive! It’s quite possible, as well as desirable, to care about both groups, without putting them in a hierarchy. The one difference to note: animals can’t speak for themselves, and that’s the reason for this blog and that last post.

About the “boo hoo hoo” for lost pets, right: that’s exactly what the response should be. Who is “Yamilee” to assume people will decide their loss is “insignificant”? Again, it’s quite possible to grieve for both “dead PEOPLE” and dead animals, without taking away from either group -- maybe just showing a bigger, kinder heart.

And of course the last sentence of the comment is a bald supposition. Among other things, is “Yamilee” automatically linking being privileged and white in the US with valuing animals over humans? That’s a very big and scary (and unprovable) generalization.

This is a time of high emotions, and understandably so. Hope you can cool out, “Yamilee.”

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Pets are brought into the home and over time the feeling is that they are part of the family. They love unconditionally and provide comfort and joy to those who care for them. Unless someone has experienced a close relationship with a pet, I can understand the frustration and confusion for some in thinking that one is valued over the other. Love simply overrides a person's financial status, race, and residency. Love is love and when a loved one is hurt or lost whether human or animal love hurts. CJ