
Jason Hribal in a book just off the CounterPunch/AK press, Fear of the Animal Planet: The Hidden History of Animal Resistance, regales the reader with tales of animal rebellion and escape from captivity. In Hribal's account, when big cats, elephants, and orcas injure or kill their trainers and keepers they are inflicting retribution for the abuse and exploitation that they suffer.
One of Hribal's most
convincing examples is Tatiana, a Siberian tiger in the San Francisco zoo. On
December 25, 2007, Tatiana cleared the 12-foot-high wall of her enclosure to
decimate the teenagers who enjoyed themselves tormenting her. Tatiana ripped one
of her tormenters to pieces, and, during her 20 minutes of freedom, she searched
the zoo grounds for the other two, ignoring zoo visitors, park employees, and
emergency responders. As Hribal puts it, "Tatiana was singular in her purpose."
She could have killed any number of people, but ignored them in pursuit of her
tormentors.
Obviously, Tatiana could
have escaped from her enclosure whenever she had wished, but had accepted her
situation until torment ended her acceptance.
Most people, were they to
read Hribal's book, would have a hard time with the intent that he ascribes to
animals. Like the executives of circuses, zoos, and Sea World, most humans
ascribe captive animal attacks to unpredictable wild instinct, to accident, or
to the animal being spooked by noise or the behavior of some third party. Hribal
confronts this view head on. Orcas purposely drown their trainers, and
elephants purposely kill their keepers. Captive animals seek
escape.
Hribal presents captive
animals as exploited and abused slaves serving the profits of their owners. Just
as human slaves ran away, captive animals run away. Hribal tells the stories of
many animal escapes.
He also tells the story of
animal executions. Animals that do not accept their slave status, rebel and
cease to perform have been executed in the most barbaric and cruel ways. One
can hardly be surprised in these days of "the war on terror" at human cruelty to
animals when humans are equally cruel to humans. The video -- allegedly leaked by
Bradley Manning who is confined by the US military in conditions worse than
captive animals -- of American soldiers intentionally murdering news reporters and
civilians for the fun of it, demonstrates the evil and wickedness that finds its
home only in humans.
In contrast, animals do
not commit wicked and evil acts. Satan's sphere belongs to humans. Predator
animals kill to eat, but, unlike human hunters, they do not kill for
fun. Lions bring down a
wildebeest or an antelope; they do not decimate the entire
herd. In contrast, I have heard
hunters describe shooting 1,000 doves in one morning and 500 prairie dogs in one
afternoon. It was all done for the fun of killing. Humans get pleasure from
killing, but there is no evidence than animals do.
So, we are faced with a
paradox: a wicked life form holds a non-wicked life form in captivity. Why did
God give the wicked dominion over the non-wicked?
A number of Hribal's
examples of animal abuse date back far in time. Today some of the human species
who interact with animals follow a more respectful approach. If animals, as
Hribal says, respond to their abuse with intelligence, would they not also
respond to affection and respect with intelligence?
The answer seems to be
that animals do. We have the case of Christian the lion, the cub rescued from
Harrod's department store in London by two Englishmen who raised an African male
lion in their London apartment and exercised him on the Church
green.
When Christian became too
large to continue living in the London flat, the Englishmen consulted an expert,
transported Christian to Africa and released him. A year or so later, the roommates who had raised Christian missed him and returned to Africa to find
him.They were warned by
conventional wisdom that Christian was now wild and would be a danger to them if
they encountered him.
As the videos available on YouTube show, when the men found Christian the lion was overcome with joy and
lavished affection on his friends. Christian was forming a pride, and the wild
lionesses were content with the human company and to be petted by men. The video
shows them all -- Christian, lionesses, cubs, and men curled up together taking a
nap.
There are a number of
videos available online of people who have raised cougars (mountain lions) and
bob cats and live with them in their homes. Perhaps the most extraordinary story
is that of Casey Anderson, a wildlife naturalist who found
two newborn grizzly cubs next
to a dead mother bear and took them home to save.
One didn't make it, but
the other did. The photos on YouTube document the interaction between humans and
grizzly, considered by many the most dangerous and unpredictable of all wild
animals, at least in North America. The 800-pound grizzly enjoys the family
swimming pool, Thanksgiving dinner with the extended human family, serves as
"best man" in the wedding of his human friend, and demonstrates genuine
affection for the man who raised him. It is unclear whether the bear thinks he
is human or that the humans are bears, but he, and they, are perfectly at ease
with one another.
As this will strike many as unbelievable, see here, here and here.
Hribal's book would have
benefitted, in my opinion, from examining what appear to be successful human
interactions with animals. Animals' personalities differ, as do people's
personalities. Just as wives murder husbands, husbands murder wives, mothers
murder children, and children murder mothers, animals can turn on their human
companions. However, animals seldom turn on humans who treat them with respect
and affection.
There are examples of
humans interacting successfully with the great predator
animals. The story of Christian the
lion is one, but there are others. The "lion man," Kevin Richardson, did not
raise many of the lions with whom he interacts, along with leopards and hyenas,
all of whom accept him as one of them. Google "Kevin Richardson" and watch the
extraordinary videos of Kevin's acceptance by lions as a member of the
pride.
Clearly, humans have very
little understanding of other life forms and little respect for them. So that we
can enjoy transportation in oversize vehicles that get 12 miles to the gallon,
we destroy the Gulf of Mexico. What happens to the bird life and aquatic life is
of no concern.
Some thoughtful people
wonder if humans belong on planet earth. Humans are great destroyers of animal
and plant life, water resources, and the soil itself. Some people think of
humans as alien invaders of planet earth. If one looks at it in this way, it
seems clear that humans have contributed nothing to the health of the planet or
to its life forms.
The notion that the life
of a human, regardless of the person's intellect, accomplishment, and moral
fiber, is superior to that of an elephant, tiger, lion, leopard, grizzly, orca,
eagle, seal, or fox, is a form of hubris that keeps the human race confined in
its ignorance.
Humans who fire-bomb
civilian cities, drop nuclear bombs on civilian populations, act out ideological
hatreds taught to them by sociopaths posing as pundits and journalists, and
decimate their own kind out of total ignorance could be regarded as a life form
that is inferior to wild animals.
Perhaps the human claim to
moral superiority needs questioning. Without the presence of mankind, there
would be no evil on the planet.
Many humans have
difficulty with the idea that animals have rights. However, in the introduction
to Hribal's book, Jeffery St. Clair reports that in Europe of the 13th-17th
centuries animals had rights and were represented in court by attorneys. This
suggests that those who are trying to stop the slaughter of wolves and to
protect animal habitat are not modern-day crazies but are empathetic people
operating from an old tradition.
Those trying to curtail
the abuse of animals face a difficult task. As long as humanity has insufficient
empathy for its own kind to stop the slaughter of Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis,
and Palestinians, protection for animals is unlikely to move to the
forefront.



