|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
Essays, Opinion, & Commentary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 3, 2006
by David A. Yeagley, Ph.D.
While she certainly attracts boys of all ages to gawk at images of her body, Pamela won't attract support of American Indians, or other indigenous peoples of the world who have been living off animals for millennia. Animals have always provided food, clothing, and shelter for the American Indian. The Eskimo and the Laplanders still live off animals. PETA Pam's protest is a complete denial of history. It condemns human existence, really. People who have used animals to survive are now disdained as unworthy of life. Animals are more worthy. Up with animals, down with humans -- that's PETA Pam's pronouncement. She didn't fool the Chinese. They censored her nude PETA posters, much to Pamela's heated humiliation. Furious, she fumes, "The authorities have it backwards. After watching newly released video footage of animals on Chinese fur farms screaming and writhing in agony as their necks are broken, I think that fur farms should be censored, not the people exposing the horrific cruelty." But it's Pamela who has it backwards. The only thing she is "exposing" is her 'horrific' sex appeal. She vehemently objects to the fact that the Chinese government would censure her naked body. How arrogant of them. Everyone knows her real concern is her personal power base, her own body. It is an impossible irony that PETA Pam's porno pics should create indignation over killing animals, as if sexual desire (for her body) should trump the necessities of food, clothing, and shelter. (How arrogant of her.) Not a surprising position, from a porno star obsessed with photographic provocation, but a position most hideously hitched to PETA's gnawing political activism. This incongruity has been noted for some time, actually. There is a website devoted to exposing the abuse of sexuality by PETA and Pamela Anderson (and many others). But cruelty toward women isn't as important as cruelty toward animals. Pamela's own experience as a "battered woman" never enters the political formula. Her allegations against Tommy Lee are apparently not to be taken politically (although they resulted in a divorce and an emergency restraining order against the aging rocker). No, it's cruelty to animals that concerns Pam. And one so devoted to fantasy wouldn't miss the cosmetics issue, and the opportunity to protest the use of animals by the cosmetic industry. Pamela recently donated "cruelty-free" cosmetics to battered women's shelters and was named spokesman for MAC Cosmetics. Pamela carefully distinguishes between cosmetics made from animal products, and cosmetics made from animals cruelty "tested" in the process of developing cosmetics. But not everyone buys her maneuver, or her cosmetics. One excellent anti-Pam website questions whether the give-away to battered women isn't because no one buys the "cruelty-free" cosmetics. How shall we define cruelty, anyway? Is killing and eating an animal a cruel act, in and of itself? The Gaian vegans may think so, but if it's true, then American Indians have a lot of apologies to make to the buffalo. We must pay serious reparations to the antelope. Yet American Indians always held animals in the highest respect. Plains Indians certainly enjoyed the hunt for big game, but there was often serious ritual in honor of the animal, as Indians realized they were taking life, to sustain their own. And when it comes to killing the animal, Jews have a special kosher method. Ancient Hebrew statues say that blood was forbidden to eat. Therefore meat was to be drained of its blood (Gen. 9: 4-6; Lev. 17:10-14). In more modern times, slaughter techniques have developed to ensure efficient and thorough drainage of blood. This method is a subject of discussion. Some countries have cited kosher slaughter as a "cruelty" issue. America has addressed the matter, as well as the Netherlands and Sweden. The Hebrew statutes also proscribe eating an animal that had the fear of death in its bloodstream. That would eliminate the celebrations after a successful Spanish bullfight. That would also mean that Comanche never ate kosher. But is it possible to divorce cruelty from killing? Perhaps. And cruelty is always a terrible thing, for man or beast. Yet PETA Pam is perfidious on this issue. Pagan vegans don't want any animals killed, in any way, for any reason. Even by the Indians and other natives they idolize.
Dr. David A. Yeagley is a published scholar, professionally recorded composer, and an adjunct professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Liberal Studies. He's on the speakers list of Young America's Foundation. E-mail him at badeagle2000@yahoo.com. View his website at http://www.badeagle.com. Because The Radical Academy publishes essays and articles on its website does not imply acceptance or approval of the comments or opinions expressed by the author of the material. Nor is the Academy responsible for any misrepresentation of the facts included. It is your job to be a critical reader. Feel free to respond to this article in The Radical Academy Forum.
Enrich your political & social life with a politics or news magazine... |
|
Politics Resource Center Main Page |
|
|
Nudity
versus animal fur -- that's the challenge of Pamela
Anderson, as she protests the use of animal fur as
clothing. The famous pornographic professional
simply poses nude, stamps a PETA protest on her
poster, and expects to triumph over the most
fundamental, ancient customs of humanity --
survival off animals. It's sex over skins,
according to Pamela.
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2004-05, & 2006 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.