What I Didn't Like at NMAI

Last Friday, our class visited the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. I thoroughly enjoyed the museum and its political messages. But there were a few things I simply could not get past.

I'd like to preface this by saying that, of course, I have respect for every culture in some way, even if I don't agree with what they do or how they think. Well...unless they're totally horrible in every way, but I can't think of many cultures that are like that. I'd also like to note that I am well aware that everyone who reads this will roll their eyes and be all like, "there she goes again..." I'm not really concerned with whether or not people agree with what I have to say--I just feel that I need to get it off my chest.

Okay, here we go.

All that spiritual connection with animals, all the "consent" to be killed and used...yeah, that's all bullshit. And yes, I know I'm Ms. Supervegan and what not, so of course I would feel this way, but really, it's all complete bullshit, and I'll explain why.

Really quickly--another preface: I am in no way demonizing these people for doing what they needed to survive pre-20th century. Gardein and Tofutti didn't exist until like, the 90s at the earliest (maybe the 80s for Tofutti--they've been making kickass vegan frozen treats and cheeses for a while). My point is, you can't blame people for not using resources that they don't have. This is in the same way that I wouldn't blame people in say, the mountain regions of Tibet, for eating meat because barely anything grows there. What I want to focus more on are the rituals that involve animals. My real complaint exists not so much in the actual slaughter of animals, but in the realm of all the false rhetoric that surrounds that slaughter, because it's all really unoriginal and ridiculous when you really think about it.

Firstly, if you really respect and love animals, you won't use them for silly things like religious rituals. I understand that religion is a big deal, but, objectively, it's kind of arbitrary. For example, when we were at the museum, I saw a depiction of a ceremony in which the full skins of white deer were held up on giant sticks and everyone stood in a circle, for no apparent good reason. I'm sure there was something positive that they thought would happen if they did this, or something negative that would happen if they didn't, but things are going to either happen or not happen regardless of whether you slaughter fifty deer and hold them up on sticks. It's just silly. And a bit suspect, I think.

I had to. Anyway, on to my next point. I was very disturbed by the rodeo video that we watched. In fact, I walked away early because I just couldn't watch any more. Few people actually understand how harmful the rodeo actually is to animals. Could you imagine spending your entire life in a cage, only coming out to run around, be caught rather violently, and be put back in the cage? It must be horrifically boring. And that poor sheep who was being ridden by that little kid...what a miserable existence to have to do the same things over and over again with little reprieve. And this is the bare minimum of suffering for these animals. Most of the time, they are beaten or otherwise tortured so they perform properly. And, just like the religious rituals, the rodeo is completely pointless. "Tradition" is a terrible excuse for anything. You know what else was "traditional"? Owning slaves. Sacrificial ceremonies of both animals and humans. Does that mean that these things are good, just because they are part of a tradition? I certainly wouldn't say so.

My final point is that the idea of animals "wanting" to help humans by "giving" them their meat and skins is totally unoriginal and completely silly. In one of the videos at the museum, a legend told of a man who traveled in the four directions. At one point, he met animals, particularly the buffalo, who told him how to use its skins and meat for warmth and food. I almost laughed when I watched that. I mean, come on. What rational being would say, "Sure! Take my life. I wasn't using it or anything." I mean, that just makes no sense.

The other part of this is the idea of the Myth of Animal Consent. My understanding, from studying this theory, is that throughout history, humans have justified the taking of lives of animals in completely arbitrary ways, purely for their own sakes (if you read my blog posts from last semester, I mentioned this myth in my tangent against Barbara Kingsolver). In ancient Greece, sacrificial cows (for fortune-telling, I'm assuming, another silly idea) would be taken to the oracle. The oracle would ask the cow if it was willing to sacrifice itself, and then proceed to drip water on its head. And then--this is the laughable part--the cow would shake the water off its head, and the oracle would take this as a nod in agreement. When they hunted, the Yakut people would say, upon encountering a bear or anything else they wanted to kill, "You have come to me. You wish me to kill you" (all this from Foer). Native Americans are no different from the Yakuts or the ancient Greeks (or us, for that matter, because we do this too, in different ways). It makes no difference to an animal if you're "honoring" it, or using every part of it--it's being killed. Was Jeffrey Dahmer a more moral serial killer because he gained sustenance from the people he killed? Do you think the people, as they were being drugged, raped, and strangled to death, cared that he was going to eat them? Do you think that made them feel better? Of course it didn't. All they cared about was the fact that someone was killing them, and animals are no different. We can make up all the spiritual connections we want--when it comes down to it, violence is violence, and no amount of spirituality can change that.

If you really, sincerely, disagree (or agree) with me, let me know. I'm always interested to hear feedback.