A Workshop with Mark Hawthorne, Author of Bleating Hearts and Striking at the Roots

  • When: Feb­ru­ary 7, 2014 from 1:00–3:00pm
  • Where: Sav­ery 408

Mark Hawthorne will talk about his new book, Bleat­ing Hearts: The Hid­den World of Ani­mal Suf­fer­ing and what it was like to write this kind of book, and he will share with us more gen­er­ally his work as an advo­cate for ani­mals. The work­shop will con­tinue with a con­ver­sa­tion about the emo­tional toll of research and writ­ing about ani­mal suf­fer­ing, the con­nec­tions between activist and aca­d­e­mic work, and strate­gies for how activists and aca­d­e­mics might shield them­selves from burnout.

Mark Hawthorne is the author of two books on ani­mal rights: Bleat­ing Hearts: The Hid­den World of Ani­mal Suf­fer­ing, which exam­ines the many ways humans exploit non­hu­mans, and Strik­ing at the Roots: A Prac­ti­cal Guide to Ani­mal Activism (both from Change­mak­ers Books), which empow­ers peo­ple around the world to get active for ani­mals. He gave up eat­ing meat after an encounter with one of India’s many cows in 1992 and became an eth­i­cal vegan a decade later. His writ­ing has also been fea­tured in Vegan’s Daily Com­pan­ion (Quarry Books) and in the antholo­gies Uncaged: Top Activists Share Their Wis­dom on Effec­tive Farm Ani­mal Advo­cacy (Ben Davi­dow) and Sto­ries to Live By: Wis­dom to Help You Make the Most of Every Day and The Best Travel Writ­ing 2005: True Sto­ries from Around the World (both from Trav­el­ers’ Tales). Mark is a fre­quent con­trib­u­tor to Veg­News mag­a­zine. He and his wife Lau­ren live in California.

Food Justice for Humans, Animals and the Environment

lau­ren Ornelas, Founder and Direc­tor of Food Empow­er­ment Project

  • Fri­day, Feb­ru­ary 7, 2014 — 4:30 p.m.
  • Thomp­son 101

How do our food choices impact humans, ani­mals and the envi­ron­ment around the globe? What does a just food sys­tem look like and how do we make it pos­si­ble? lau­ren Ornelas, of Food Empow­er­ment Project, will talk about inter­lock­ing oppres­sions in the food sys­tem as she shares her life-long work to end exploita­tive food pro­duc­tion prac­tices. Ornelas will speak about her advo­cacy for work­ers’ rights in the Cen­tral Val­ley of Cal­i­for­nia and Food Empow­er­ment Project’s efforts to improve access to healthy foods for low income com­mu­ni­ties and com­mu­ni­ties of color in the United States, her recent cam­paign to end child slav­ery in choco­late pro­duc­tion in Ghana and the Ivory Coast, and her ongo­ing com­mit­ment to end­ing the exploita­tion of ani­mals in the food sys­tem locally and around the globe.

Spe­cial thanks to the co-sponsors of this event: Anthro­pol­ogy, Geog­ra­phy, Amer­i­can Eth­nic Stud­ies, Com­par­a­tive His­tory of Ideas, and the Diver­sity Research Institute.

lau­ren Ornelas is the founder of Food Empow­er­ment Project and serves as the group’s exec­u­tive direc­tor. She is also the for­mer exec­u­tive direc­tor of Viva!USA, a national non­profit vegan advo­cacy orga­ni­za­tion. lau­ren has been active in the ani­mal rights move­ment for more than 20 years. After spend­ing four years as national cam­paign coor­di­na­tor for In Defense of Ani­mals, lau­ren was asked by Viva!UK to start and run Viva!USA in 1999. In coop­er­a­tion with activists across the coun­try, she worked and achieved cor­po­rate changes within Whole Foods Mar­ket, Trader Joe’s, and Pier 1 Imports, among oth­ers. She served as cam­paign direc­tor with the Sil­i­con Val­ley Tox­ics Coali­tion for six years.

More on the Food Empow­er­ment Project here: http://www.foodispower.org

Centering Animals in Latin American History

Pub­lic Talks: Wednes­day, Jan­u­ary 29, 4:30–6:30 in Com­mu­ni­ca­tions 120

  • Zeb Tor­torici (New York Uni­ver­sity): Bes­tial­ity and the Human/Animal Bound­ary in New Spain
  • Martha Few (Uni­ver­sity of Ari­zona): Killing Locusts in Colo­nial Guatemala

Crit­i­cal Ani­mal Stud­ies Work­shop: Thurs­day, Jan­u­ary 30, 12:00–2:00 in Thom­son 317

  • Zeb Tor­torici: Archives and Animalicity
  • Martha Few: Ani­mals, Human Repro­duc­tion, and Shape-Shifting Sor­cery in Colo­nial Guatemala

Co-sponsored by Com­par­a­tive His­tory of Ideas, His­tory, Latin Amer­i­can and Caribbean Stud­ies, Gen­der, Women, and Sex­u­al­ity Stud­ies, the Simp­son Cen­ter for the Human­i­ties, and the Crit­i­cal Ani­mal Stud­ies Work­ing Group.

Bios and Abstracts

Zeb Tor­torici is Assis­tant Pro­fes­sor in the Depart­ment of Span­ish and Por­tuguese at New York Uni­ver­sity. He received his Ph.D. in His­tory from UCLA, and has pub­lished arti­cles in Eth­no­his­tory, the Jour­nal of the His­tory of Sex­u­al­ity, His­tory Com­passe-misférica, and has an arti­cle forth­com­ing in GLQ. He has chap­ters in the edited vol­umes Death and Dying in Colo­nial Span­ish Amer­ica and Queer Youth Cul­tures. With Martha Few, he recently co-edited Cen­ter­ing Ani­mals in Latin Amer­i­can His­tory (Duke Uni­ver­sity Press, 2013). With Daniel Mar­shall and Kevin Mur­phy, he is cur­rently co-editing two spe­cial issues of Rad­i­cal His­tory Review on the topic of “queer­ing archives,” and with Pete Sigal and Erika Robb Larkins, he is co-editing Ethno­pornog­ra­phy: Sex­u­al­ity, Colo­nial­ism, and Anthro­po­log­i­cal Know­ing.

 Bes­tial­ity and the Human/Animal Bound­ary in New Spain

This talk inter­ro­gates the many ways that humans and ani­mals inter­acted phys­i­cally, the­o­log­i­cally, and metaphor­i­cally in rela­tion to the ques­tion of desire. I demon­strate how the natural/unnatural dichotomy—so salient a cat­e­gory in Span­ish reli­gious doctrine—interacts with other binary cat­e­gories like human/animal and sodomy/reproductive sex. This talk also seeks to “cen­ter ani­mals” by focus­ing, to the extent that it is pos­si­ble, on non-human ani­mal sub­jec­tiv­i­ties. In con­trast to their human coun­ter­parts, the Euro­pean domes­ti­cated animals—donkeys, mares, goats, dogs, and hens—that crim­i­nal courts impli­cated in the crime of bes­tial­ity were reg­u­larly put to death by sec­u­lar courts, so as to “erase the mem­ory of such acts.” Using a cor­pus of 108 crim­i­nal bes­tial­ity cases and 25 Inqui­si­tion denun­ci­a­tions from New Spain (between the years of 1530 and 1821), this chap­ter delves into the rural nature of a crime that legal records doc­u­ment far more fre­quently than the other “sins against nature” of sodomy, same-sex solic­i­ta­tion, and mas­tur­ba­tion. Ulti­mately, this paper shows that the human/animal bound­ary was never absolute, and that the phys­i­cal, ide­o­log­i­cal, and metaphor­i­cal cross­ings ren­dered nature and the cat­e­gory of the unnatural—and that of the “human”—paradoxical, ambigu­ous, and rid­dled with inconsistencies.

 Archives and Animalicity

Cen­ter­ing on an anony­mously penned eighteenth-century archival doc­u­ment found in Mexico’s national his­tor­i­cal archive—the Dis­curso Filosofico Sobre el Lenguage de los Ani­males (“Philo­soph­i­cal Dis­course on the Lan­guage of Animals”)—this talk traces my increas­ingly com­plex encoun­ters with ani­mals in the his­tor­i­cal archives of the Span­ish empire, from the early six­teenth cen­tury until the early nine­teenth. By focus­ing on my own strug­gles to his­tor­i­cally and the­o­ret­i­cally con­tex­tu­al­ize this par­tic­u­larly quixotic doc­u­ment, I dis­cuss the ways in which ani­mal mean­ing is pro­duced through archival prac­tices. The Dis­curso Filosofico, which broaches the top­ics of ani­mal sen­tience, lan­guage, com­mu­ni­ca­tion, and souls, forces schol­ars to recon­sider the dis­junc­ture between tex­tual rep­re­sen­ta­tions of ani­mals and real ani­mals that lived in the past.

Build­ing on anthro­pol­o­gist Neil L. Whitehead’s recent def­i­n­i­tion of his­toric­ity as “the inves­ti­ga­tion of cul­tural schema and sub­jec­tive atti­tudes that make the past mean­ing­ful,” here I put forth the term ani­malic­ity as a pro­duc­tive cat­e­gory through which to think about the cul­tural schema and sub­jec­tive atti­tudes that make the ani­mal mean­ing­ful in the past.  Ani­malic­ity, as I take it, encom­passes a method­ol­ogy of how the ani­mal may be writ­ten or oth­er­wise expressed in his­tor­i­cal doc­u­men­ta­tion, while simul­ta­ne­ously point­ing to the dis­junc­tive space between tex­tual rep­re­sen­ta­tions of ani­mals, archival nar­ra­tives about ani­mals, and the once liv­ing sen­tient ani­mals of the past. I argue that in order to more mean­ing­fully “cen­ter ani­mals” in the past, we need not only to search for phys­i­cal and tex­tual traces of ani­mals in archives, but also to expand our notion of the archive as a com­plex zoopo­lit­i­cal space—a space where ani­mal mean­ing is pro­duced, where ani­malic­ity abounds, and where the specter of the ani­mal haunts his­tor­i­cal documentation.

Martha Few is Asso­ciate Pro­fes­sor of colo­nial Latin Amer­i­can his­tory at the Uni­ver­sity of Ari­zona, Tuc­son. She is author of Women Who Live Evil Lives: Gen­der, Reli­gion, and the Pol­i­tics of Power in Colo­nial Guatemala (2002) and, with Zeb Tor­torici, Cen­ter­ing Ani­mals in Latin Amer­i­can His­tory (2013). Prof. Few has been a Vis­it­ing Scholar at Har­vard University’s David Rock­e­feller Cen­ter for Latin Amer­i­can Stud­ies, and has held research fel­low­ships at the New­berry Library, the John Carter Brown Library, and the Hunt­ing­ton Library. She is cur­rently fin­ish­ing a new book, Signs of Life: Mesoamer­i­can and Colo­nial Med­i­cine in Enlight­en­ment Guatemala.

Killing Locusts in Colo­nial Guatemala

Dur­ing three-plus cen­turies of Span­ish colo­nial rule, locusts, by peri­od­i­cally join­ing to cre­at­ing mass stream ways and trav­el­ing hun­dreds of miles, played a sig­nif­i­cant role in the his­tory of colo­nial Guatemala.  The devour­ing insect swarms repeat­edly con­sumed and trans­formed the land­scape of the Audi­en­cia of Guatemala, a geo­graphic area that roughly com­prises what is today south­ern Mex­ico and the nation-states of Cen­tral Amer­ica, and that was the site of Mesoamer­i­can civ­i­liza­tions that included the Maya. Yet for the most part, schol­ars have focused on insects such as locusts only in sup­port­ing roles in a greater nar­ra­tive describ­ing the his­tory of agri­cul­ture and pub­lic health. Accounts of locust infes­ta­tions writ­ten by polit­i­cal offi­cials, priests, farm­ers, Maya elites, and Euro­pean trav­ellers reveal that ways that those liv­ing in the Audi­en­cia con­sid­ered locusts to be sig­nif­i­cantly embed­ded in a wide range of colo­nial eco­nomic, polit­i­cal, and reli­gious processes, processes that his­to­ri­ans have deemed cen­tral to research on the his­tory colo­nial­ism in Latin America.

Ani­mals, Human Repro­duc­tion, and Shape-Shifting Sor­cery in Colo­nial Guatemala

In colo­nial Guatemala, sources describ­ing mag­i­cal vio­lence and malev­o­lent witch­craft in com­mu­nity con­flicts por­trayed excep­tional women and men as hav­ing the power to shape-shift– to trans­form their own bod­ies into ani­mals and nat­ural objects. This has been called nagual­ismo in the eth­no­his­tor­i­cal lit­er­a­ture, and though local vari­a­tions have been noted, shape-changing abil­ity has gen­er­ally been attrib­uted to the most suc­cess­ful and feared rit­ual spe­cial­ists. This essay con­tin­ues to explore the issue of shape-shifting as an exam­ple of Mesoamer­i­can rit­ual power dur­ing the colo­nial period, but I expand my his­tor­i­cal inves­ti­ga­tions to con­sider depic­tions of the shape shifter’s abil­ity to both cross and manip­u­late human-animal bound­aries, and how these trans­for­ma­tions played out in cul­tural under­stand­ings of ani­mals in rela­tion to human repro­duc­tion and fetal devel­op­ment. The essay ana­lyzes a series of case stud­ies where rit­ual spe­cial­ists trans­formed their own bod­ies and the bod­ies of oth­ers, tar­get­ing sex­ual organs as sites for the phys­i­cal dis­play of their pow­ers to dis­rupt human repro­duc­tion. I probe the issue of the per­me­abil­ity of human-animal bound­aries fur­ther by ana­lyz­ing sources that depict the fetus as shape-shifter, por­trayed as capa­ble of trans­for­ma­tion dur­ing fetal devel­op­ment in utero within a con­tin­uum of human, ani­mal, and hybrid human-animal. Together, these exam­ples allow me to explore rep­re­sen­ta­tions of flex­i­ble and unsta­ble bina­ries of human/animal and male/female, as well as the fragility of the cat­e­gory of human, within his­tor­i­cal under­stand­ings of shape-shifting and malev­o­lent sor­cery in colo­nial Mesoamer­i­can rit­ual cul­tures. In this way I attempt to rethink the links between gen­dered rit­ual power and repro­duc­tion, and how these links pro­vide clues to under­stand­ing the cat­e­gories of human and ani­mal as a con­tin­uum rather than as binary cat­e­gories in colo­nial Mesoamerica.

From Animal Rights to Animal Studies

Paul Wal­dau (Can­i­sius College)

  • Thurs­day Novem­ber 7, 2013, 4:00 p.m.
  • Sav­ery 359

There will be a work­shop with Pro­fes­sor Wal­dau on Fri­day Novem­ber 8, 9:30–11:00, Sav­ery 359.

From Ani­mal Rights to Ani­mal Stud­ies: In describ­ing one of his cur­rent projects, Paul Wal­dau notes that “tra­di­tional edu­ca­tion about non­hu­mans can be summed by Theodore Roszak’s obser­va­tion, ‘let us admit that the acad­emy has rarely been a place of dar­ing.’” In this talk, Wal­dau, a scholar of ani­mal stud­ies, ethics, reli­gion, law and cul­tural stud­ies, describes why the urgency of dar­ing to inquire openly about the moral sig­nif­i­cance of non­hu­man ani­mals. In this explo­ration of the chal­lenges posed by “the ani­mal” for the human­i­ties and the human sci­ences, Wal­dau engages with debates over the ped­a­gog­i­cal, polit­i­cal, and affec­tive dimen­sions of an inter­dis­ci­pli­nary con­ver­sa­tion that has gone from “ani­mal rights” to “Ani­mal Studies.”

More on Paul Wal­dau here: http://www.paulwaldau.com/bio–cv.html

The Social Skin: Humans and Animals in India

Anthro­pol­o­gist Nais­argi Dave (Uni­ver­sity of Toronto)

  • Wednes­day Octo­ber 30, 2013, 4:30 p.m.
  • Thom­son 101

Pro­fes­sor Dave will dis­cuss her new project, The Social Skin: Humans and Ani­mals in India. Co-sponsored by Anthro­pol­ogy; CHID; Crit­i­cal Ani­mal Stud­ies Work­ing Group; Gen­der, Women and Sex­u­al­ity Stud­ies; and South Asia Center.

You are also invited to a work­shop with Pro­fes­sor Dave on Thurs­day Octo­ber 31, 10:00 a.m., Sav­ery 408

Abstract: There are many affec­tive modal­i­ties in ani­mal activism: pity, out­rage, dis­gust, suf­fer­ing, hope­less­ness. Indeed it is this affec­tive charge that some point to as a sign of ani­mal activism’s irra­tional­ity, its animal-feminine nature, its pre­car­i­ous exis­tence as a human pol­i­tics. This paper’s first objec­tive is to argue that pre­car­ity emerges with the very asser­tion of human being, for it is with that asser­tion that we under­stand, how­ever silently, what it would mean to not be that. This is pre­car­ity: try­ing to remain some­thing that is only what we anx­iously say it is, try­ing to remain human. If this is pre­car­ity, then pre­car­ity is not a sign of the times and it is not uniquely classed; nor, how­ever, is it every­where. This paper’s sec­ond task is engag­ing with ways of being and becom­ing that dis­solve the self in rela­tion to its oth­ers by dis­avow­ing the lib­eral dic­tums of rights, hope, agency, and strug­gle and rec­og­niz­ing instead that we are all co-sufferers in the world, no more man than don­key, pig than child. How does one act when there is no One to act on an Other’s behalf? How does one act after feel­ing that attach­ment to one’s human being is the ground of injus­tice and thus can­not be its redemp­tion? This is not a rous­ing pol­i­tics but it is a rad­i­cal one, and I draw on my work with ani­mal activists in India to show that the future of polit­i­cal life might not be in hope but in noth­ing at all.

Nais­argi N. Dave is Asso­ciate Pro­fes­sor of Anthro­pol­ogy at the Uni­ver­sity of Toronto. Her research con­cerns emer­gent forms of pol­i­tics and rela­tion­al­ity in India, specif­i­cally queer and posthu­man. Dave’s arti­cles have appeared in jour­nals such as Amer­i­can Eth­nol­o­gist, Signs, and Fem­i­nist Stud­ies. Her book, Queer Activism in India: A Story in the Anthro­pol­ogy of Ethics is pub­lished by Duke Uni­ver­sity Press and was awarded the 2013 Ruth Bene­dict Prize. She is cur­rently work­ing on her sec­ond book, The Social Skin: Humans and Ani­mals in India.

Doglincuents and semi-stray dogs: A theoretical approximation to multi-species ethnography on globalization

Iván San­doval Cer­vantes (PhD Can­di­date in Anthro­pol­ogy at the Uni­ver­sity of Oregon)

  • Wednes­day, May 22, 2013 from 3:30pm-5:00pm
  • Thom­son 403

This paper is an attempt to the­o­ret­i­cally con­struct a con­cept of multi-species ethnog­ra­phy that addresses the ways in which the inequal­i­ties pro­duced by processes of glob­al­iza­tion affect non­hu­man ani­mals. In this sense, a multi-species ethno­graph­i­cal project should see non­hu­man ani­mals not only as sym­bols or as part of the nat­ural resources avail­able to humans but as part of com­plex his­tor­i­cal inter­species tra­jec­to­ries (Kirk­sey and Helm­re­ich 2010).

These tra­jec­to­ries include notions about own­er­ship that reg­u­late the rela­tions between human and non­hu­man ani­mals. It is by ana­lyz­ing these tra­jec­to­ries that multi-species ethno­gra­phies can ques­tion how dif­fer­ent non­hu­man ani­mal species have been placed in what I call (based Aiwha Ong’s (2006) con­cept of “grad­u­ated cit­i­zen­ship”) “grad­u­ated human­ness” that encom­passes ideas about ani­mal and human rights, and the agency of non­hu­man ani­mals, and that influ­ences how humans inter­act with non­hu­man ani­mals. To exem­plify the use of this the­o­ret­i­cal frame­work I will ana­lyze an event that took place in Mex­ico City in Jan­u­ary 2013 that involved a pack of “wild” dogs “attack­ing” and “killing” a group of peo­ple in Mex­ico City’s most pop­u­lated borough.

Sex and the Guinea Pig: Extracting, (Re)Producing, and Consuming Animal Bodies in Peru

María Elena Gar­cía (CHID/JSIS)

  • Thurs­day May 16, 2013, 12:00–1:30
  • Thom­son 403

Peru is in the midst of a much cel­e­brated gas­tro­nomic boom. Pro­mot­ers of this boom invoke the country’s “nat­ural” bio­di­ver­sity as key to Peru­vian cuisine’s suc­cess. This local cel­e­bra­tion of food, along with the push toward the global mar­ket­ing of Peru­vian cui­sine, has implied greater extrac­tion and con­sump­tion of “nat­ural resources” such as indige­nous grains, tubers, fruits, and ani­mals that are seen as some of the cen­tral ingre­di­ents of novoandino cui­sine. While the extrac­tion of other kinds of nat­ural resources have resulted in waves of protest over the “destruc­tion of nature”, less has been said about the extrac­tion, con­sump­tion and in some cases genetic manip­u­la­tion of the plants and ani­mals at the cen­ter of the so-called gas­tro­nomic rev­o­lu­tion. This paper is an explo­ration of the biopol­i­tics and cos­mopol­i­tics of Peru­vian food. Specif­i­cally, I offer a mul­ti­species, gen­dered analy­sis of the genetic and repro­duc­tive manip­u­la­tion of guinea pig bod­ies tak­ing place as a result of the national excite­ment around Peru­vian novoandino cuisine.

Workshop on Compassion Fatigue

Cather­ine Hagan (Assis­tant Pro­fes­sor, Depart­ment of Vet­eri­nary Patho­bi­ol­ogy, Uni­ver­sity of Missouri)

  • Mon­day May 6, 2013, 12:00–2:00
  • Sav­ery 408

This work­shop will con­tinue a con­ver­sa­tion that began last year, when we explored the issue of com­pas­sion fatigue and burnout in peo­ple work­ing with ani­mals in research. Again, the pri­mary con­text to be dis­cussed is peo­ple work­ing with ani­mals in research. While a dis­cus­sion of alter­na­tives to ani­mal use is impor­tant, this work­shop is not intended to be a dis­cus­sion about whether or not it is appro­pri­ate for ani­mals to be used in such cir­cum­stances. Rather, we will focus on explor­ing ideas and strate­gies for sup­port­ing peo­ple whose jobs involve dif­fi­cult and emo­tion­ally demand­ing aspects of ani­mal care.

Cather­ine Hagan is an Assis­tant Pro­fes­sor in the Depart­ment of Vet­eri­nary Patho­bi­ol­ogy at the Uni­ver­sity of Mis­souri. She received a B.S. degree in Bio­log­i­cal Sci­ences from Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity, a D.V.M. from the Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­for­nia, Davis, and a Ph.D. in Mol­e­c­u­lar and Cel­lu­lar Biol­ogy from the Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton, Seat­tle. She com­pleted a res­i­dency at UW in the Depart­ment of Com­par­a­tive Med­i­cine in lab­o­ra­tory ani­mal med­i­cine and com­par­a­tive pathol­ogy in 2008 and was an act­ing fac­ulty mem­ber there until leav­ing this past fall. Her research explores stress, sero­tonin, and brain innate immunity.

Exceptional Americanism: Holt Collier, Teddy Roosevelt, and a Bear at Bay

Annie Dwyer (English)

  • Thurs­day April 25, 2013, 12:00–1:30
  • Thom­son 403

This paper is an excerpt from a dis­ser­ta­tion chap­ter enti­tled “Prim­i­tive Accu­mu­la­tions.” The chap­ter explores how mate­r­ial prac­tices involv­ing ani­mals and emer­gent mean­ings of ani­mal­ity set the stage for the per­for­mance of mas­culin­ity and the enact­ment of racial­ized vio­lence. The human-animal encounter that anchors the dis­cus­sion is the hunt, more specif­i­cally, rep­re­sen­ta­tions of hunt­ing writ­ten either by or about Theodore Roo­sevelt. In read­ing these rep­re­sen­ta­tions, this chap­ter traces how ani­mal­ity accrues the sense of sav­agery — expressed and accessed through the exer­cise of vio­lence — in the Amer­i­can cul­tural imag­i­nary over the course of the Pro­gres­sive era. Ulti­mately, this chap­ter links the cul­tural reimag­in­ing of the ani­mal as a “bar­barous beast” to the resur­gence of a prim­i­tivist imag­i­nary autho­riz­ing cap­i­tal­ist accu­mu­la­tion — what we might call prim­i­tive accu­mu­la­tion, to both invoke and expand Marx’s use of the term.

The excerpt I will be dis­trib­ut­ing focuses specif­i­cally on Roosevelt’s famous 1902 Mis­sis­sippi bear hunt. Dur­ing the hunt, Roo­sevelt dra­mat­i­cally dis­played his “good sports­man­ship” in refus­ing to kill a black bear that had been beaten and tied so that he might claim the tro­phy. While the event is well-known for inspir­ing the cre­ation of the teddy bear, schol­ars have largely neglected how the sub­text of the news cov­er­age — a pub­lic debate about lynch­ing — pro­pelled the story’s rise to celebrity. The black hunt­ing guide who led the hunt, Holt Col­lier, fig­ures as largely as Roo­sevelt in rep­re­sen­ta­tions of the event, as he held the bear at bay under pres­sure to help Roo­sevelt “bag” his game. In show­ing how rep­re­sen­ta­tions of the event fueled the myth of the black rapist, I also explore how the per­mis­si­bil­ity of vio­lence against ani­mals and the rein­vest­ment of ani­mal­ity with the sense of sav­agery under­wrote the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion of mob vio­lence in the Jim Crow south.

Next Page »