This blog will
explore two magazines: Time and The Atlantic.
Q: What is the debate, disagreement or argument in the story about?
A: On January 20th, a ban placed on the domestic selling of
rhinoceros horns was overturned by the South African high court. Whether or not
this ban will benefit rhinoceroses or not is debatable. What I mean by this is
rhinos can be farmed much like cattle and their horns removed without causing
pain to the animal. The farmers can then turn around and sell the horns in
local areas now that the domestic ban has been lifted. However, rhinoceros
horns are not a luxury in Africa, where 80% of the world’s rhinoceros
population resides, but more so in Asian countries where they believe the horn
has healing capabilities. The international trade of rhinoceros horns is still
illegal which means the farmers are spending a lot of money to maintain their
farms while risking the consequences of illegal international trade. This also
encourages poachers to go out in the wild a murder a rhino with no cost to them
and turn around and sell on the black market for huge profits. This raises the
question: does the South African high court completely ban all rhinoceros horn
sales and penalize everyone they can apprehend committing the crime or do they
legalize the horn and use the profits from sales to fight poachers who are
driving this creature to its extinction.
Q: Who is the most sympathetic character in the story? Who are they? How are they involved? Why do they evoke feelings of sympathy from you?
A: The most sympathetic characters in the story are actually the
conservationists in the video linked in the article. They are a group of 23
women and 3 men that patrol the desert, or bush as they refer to it, day and
night looking for broken fences, poacher traps, and distressed animals. They do
not carry weapons aside from their words and presence. Most of the women come
from places where poachers live so when they go home they provide information
to their community. They do not use the animals as their source of sympathy
from people. Most animal activists use the sweet innocent faces of the animals
to convince people to stop hurting / killing them, but these women and men use
their community income as their anti-poaching argument. Most of their village's
/ town's income comes from tourism. If there are not animals or anything to see
in the bush the people will not come and the villagers will be left poor.
Q: Who is the least
sympathetic character in the story? Who are they? How are they
involved? Why can't you easily sympathize with them?
A: There is no specific account from someone in the story that
I am not sympathetic towards. The article is almost playing the devil’s
advocate with providing arguments for both sides of the ban. Most people
mentioned in the story are advocates for the rhinos or are anti-poaching with
is difficult, in my opinion, to not sympathize with. The least sympathetic
character in the story that is not heavily touched on in my eyes is the court
system. Yes the people have a point that the ban infringed upon their right to
sell their product, but their actions infringe upon these animals rights to
live! These poachers are blatantly lying to their Asian customers promising
that the rhinoceros horn has cancer curing abilities when all they are looking
for is a quick buck at the expense of a beautiful creature’s life. The worst
part about this is the court knows of these lies. They know the unimaginable
cruelty going on and they are too constrained to do anything about it quickly.
If they do not figure out a solution it will not matter because these creatures
will no longer roam the earth.
Evans,
Steve. "Save The Rhinos !!"
11/22/2010 via flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic
Q: What is the debate, disagreement or argument in the story
about?
A: There is not much of a debate in this
article as the previous. It
does however argue the removal of elephants, and eventually other animals, from
circus shows. Circuses are grossly under-equipped to breed and raise elephants or
almost any non-domesticated large
animal. This article highlights not only a circuses, mainly Ringling Bros,
inability to properly care for their animals, but also the inhumane and cruel
treatment of these animals. Animals that travel miles per day with their herd
are forced to stand on boxes and in small train cars for days on end. Their intelligence
is also used against them in that "trainers" will use whips, bull hooks, and ankus to coerce the animals to
submit and "learn" a new trick.
Q: Who is the most sympathetic character in
the story? Who are they? How are they involved? Why do they evoke feelings of
sympathy from you?
A: I think the obvious
recipients of sympathy in this story are the animals. They did not ask for
human curiosity and greed to so heavily impact their lives. They did not ask to
be beaten and so mistreated that they die a lonely death. They did not ask to
be ripped from their herd and thrown into a train car. They are the voiceless
victims. These animals could have long prosperous lives but instead are used as
a tool to make a handful of people rich.
Q:
Who is the least sympathetic character in the story? Who are
they? How are they involved? Why can't you easily sympathize with them?
A: The least sympathetic
character in this story is the circus industry and all of their employees, not
just Ringling Bros but every person that makes the conscious decision to be an active part of this institution and
think nothing of the well-being of the creatures they watch over. With my aspiration of one day being a large / exotic animal
veterinarian, I feel the most disdain towards the veterinarians involved in
these crimes that turned a blind eye probably because they are being paid a
large amount of money. People like this motivate me that much more to become
someone that can change or help correct an issue.
reddy, ram.
"Chained Destiny..."
1215/2008 via flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial
2.0 Generic
No comments:
Post a Comment