From: unglenie@bell.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: 2 questions for the AR types
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:01:47 GMT

ru,
i know this topic has been passed for a while,
but i am missing files to allow me to connect
to the Net.  please post somehow, if you can.
sk

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: 2 questions for the AR types
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <92Aug18.221744.25680@acs.ucalgary.ca> powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:
>
>Just out of curiosity, I would like to know the AR position (or
>at least the position of an AR reading this) on two things:
>
>1) North American native culture.
>2) rats (the rodent).
>

North American native culture(s)--

  the sad but true history is that modern americans (specifically whites)
  take the ideals of the native cultures <- note the "s" and apply them
  only when those ideals suit their needs:
	a.  hunters often cite the use of animal products by 'indians' but
            *rarely* live a lifestyle that shows the same respect for animals
            or environment (this is true of most americans today, but hunters
            are pegged because 'indian' reference is often used as a defense
            of their actions)

  you should know some other things too:
	a.  the word "squaw" is 'indian' for vagina -- i advise against its
            use around some of my 'indian' friends.
	
	b.  "redskins" is indeed a very offensive word -- it comes from the 
             bounty-hunters terminology to claim a reward (they killed so many 
             that bringing in the whole bodies was becoming inconvinient and so 
             they were allowed to simply bring in the "redskin")  ... to which 
             i say, "f__k the Redskins fans who claim they have some right to 
             use this word!"

Rats--

    another sad story:
	a.  in nature, rats have their niche as any other creature.  only when 
            man is wasteful and creates "filth" for these beings to live in, 
            is there a problem

    ask yourself: where do humans have a problem with rats?  in city sewers?  
                  in grain piles?  disease- sorry, but in the wild rats would 
                  carry much less disease and incidentally, aren't humans 
                  wimpy... a small little rat can live his/her life with a 
                  disease that could potentially kill hundreds of humans (this 
                  might be construed as an argument against research on 
                  nonhumans-- think about saccharin <sp?>, how many times
                  will we reverse the judgement on this one based on laboratory 
                  tests on rodents?)
                 
to the AR advocate, using the name Rat does not conjure up images of death and 
disease.  this (fear) is part of another myth which should be dispelled.  we co-
exist with all creatures to the best of our ability (yes, guided by compassion).

   if you have a problem with rats, try reducing the human population density
   (and to preclude any flames about being antihuman, i will state that i love 
    humans too -- we need to understand the Unity of Oppression)
   
SK (one more for the Earth)
skeating@titan.colorado.edu



--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals