Group Report 1:
Brittany Jette, Giahuy Lenguyen, Kaustubh Pandit, Rachael Zmich
Parker, Ian. “Killing Animals at the Zoo.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 29 Oct. 2017, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/16/killing-animals-at-the-zoo.
Ian Parker contributed to his first article at the The New Yorker in 1994 and his first solo piece in 2000. He has been a profile writer for many well-known figures in society, such as Ken Burns and Elton John. Before working for The New Yorker, he worked at the London Observer and the Independent. Based on Parker’s journalism credentials, it seems that he has the authority to report accurate information on this issue, however, he does not seem to have a full, studied understanding of animals or animal rights. Therefore, he is not necessarily qualified to give his opinion on animal rights.
Parker’s online news article was published in The New Yorker to inform others of zoo practices, like culling, and how the views between Denmark and the United States differ. A scholarly focus in this article is that by understanding that there is a difference in the cultures of the United States and Denmark, we can begin to understand and learn why Denmark does things differently than the United States.
The main argument of this article could be interpreted in a couple different ways. The first argument that is less of a bias opinion and more of a stated fact is that the United States sees animals and the treatment of animals in zoos in a very different way than in Denmark. This can be seen multiple times throughout the text, both in contrasting beliefs, the US and Denmark have about contraception in zoos and in statements such as, “American zoos were keen to distance themselves from Copenhagen, but they struggled to find the right ethical objection” (Parker, 25). The other, more bias argument that the author hints at is the idea that killing an animal and displaying its dissection for the purposes of education and conservation is morally wrong. While this is not explicitly stated, the attitude the author displays in multiple examples indicates a negative and criminalizing attitude toward the actions of the Copenhagen Zoo. This can be seen in the statement, “Danish children, after attending a lion dissection, cut open dead rats” (Parker, 16), which indicates that these killings and “educational opportunities” may be not only useless but possibly even harmful to the public.
Evidence that supports that Denmark and the United States differ in their view is clear when Parker states on page 8 that “the Copenhagen Zoo, […] avoid what Holst likes to call the ‘Disneyfication’ of nature.” Holst, Denmark’s chair on the Animal Ethics Council, disagrees explicitly with humanizing animals by giving them names. When the author says this, he shows that Denmark has a scientific view on animals and sees them more as objects whereas Americans assume that nothing can ever die or have a disappointing ending.
The article is unclear with its statement on whether zoos play a crucial role in conservation and protecting endangered animals. Parker first mentions that “many people in the zoo industry argue that they play a role in protecting endangered species,” (Parker, 12), however later on that page, he contradicts himself by adding “Zoo visits made people seventeen percent less committed to taking action on habitat protection and creation,” (Parker, 12). This rebuttal against himself makes it unclear what point he is trying to convey. After analyzing, it seems that Parker is against the idea that zoos help protect endangered species.
Holst is used again as evidence when he explains that the dismemberment of Marius the giraffe is educational. Parker states “‘Schoolchildren can actually learn a lot from seeing this.’ […] He noted that children ‘asked a lot of questions,’ […] Holst said, “We try to show the public what an animal is, what animal wonders are, in all its aspects … And the real-life lions eat meat, and meat comes, among others, from giraffes,” (Parker, 18). This backs up the previous statement about Danes having a different view on the treatment of zoo animals because it shows that Denmark is more focused on the scientific side of zoos and teaching others whereas zoos in the US are for pleasure and an excuse for people to get out of the house.
The main purpose of every zoological park is to serve the general public as an entertainment source and facility through which people can escape reality for a brief moment and get educated by seeing and witness other species do activities. The educational part is especially important for children and this way they can learn more about different animals, even plants and develop respect and love for them. However, in this article, “Killing the animals at the Zoo” published in the New York Times by Ian Parker , he states “ In Denmark, culled animals are viewed as educational opportunities, and as meat for other captive animals” (page 3) this is quite different compared to the purpose behind zoos that are in the U.S. because Denmark agrees that they are meant to have an educational purpose behind them but does not provide an educational experience for the customers. The Copenhagen zoo surprised the public by shooting a young giraffe, dissected it in public, and then feed it remains to lions. They clearly viewed this as an opportunity to educate the public in their eyes even though it would leave many young children with bad thoughts and a bitter taste in their mouth. This is not the moral and the standard for other zoos in other countries though.
Nigel Rothfel, who is an author of “Savages and Beasts: The Birth of the Modern Zoo”, emphasizes the beneficial factors that zoological gardens and what they soul purpose are meant for. On page 19, he states “Zoological gardens, on the other hand, are understood to be places that privilege scientific endeavor and public education” zoological gardens bring forth not just education but science and the possibility that the collections of animals could become the center of emerging environmental/animal protection movements and the basic human need for nature in the midst of urban concentration. This opens up the question on a zoo would be able to bring educational purposes to visitors because one country can see an event as unfortunate or as an issue, but another could find it as an opportunity to drag in customers to see something that is abnormal to them and might sound attractive to them. What is viewed as a qualifies as educational to the public in every country?
While reading this article, our group had a discussion about how Americans treat animals differently compared to Danes. The Danes were more utilitarian in their approach of Animals and did not link any emotions with the animals. The Danes killed Marius as they believed that Marius was more useful to them dead than alive. The reaction of the people in the USA compared to Denmark was also something that surprised us and got us pondering on the implications and the intriguing ideas. We wondered whether the way American culture interprets and react to animal rights influence the way animal rights are globally interpreted and if treating animals as inanimate the best way to treat animals. These were two topics that highly intrigued us and as a result something that our group would be interested in looking in.