The sacred cow is related to me

Many Sikhs and Hindus were forced to flee India during the Indo-Pakistani War in 1947; my grandmother’s family was one of the many who settle in the northeastern region of Thailand, a province known as Ubon Ratchathani. Although Bangkok is the capital of Thailand, life was easier and businesses were blooming in the Northern/Eastern Region. Her Sikh tradition and cultural ways are strong. The one type of meat which the Sikhs and the Hindus do not devour is beef. Instead, they worshipped them. She believes that the cow is sacred, that the cow is a symbol of god and human combine into one. What I mean by this is that the cow’s feces would help rice and vegetables grow, but not only that, it also gives milk to help the human species grow and develop. The cow is used to pull heavy agriculture equipments, but that was when the iphone could be compared to animals such as cows, donkeys and camels right? The cow flourishes the planet. My grandmother’s teachings grew onto her nine children, which grew onto my generation. Now that I’m more educated this lifetime, I understand fully why my grandmother do the things she does and where she learned her beliefs. Still today, my grandmother is a truly outstanding vegetarian.

My grandparents moved to Bangkok, where I was born and raised. I essentially grew up around Sikh culture which was my grandparent’s tradition and teachings with Buddhism as a second religion. I never ate beef the first ten years of my life. Then I moved to the United States, to reside with father, who migrated to the U.S. three years prior. He broke my grandmother’s tradition and was first children to have beef as a part of his diet. His teachings became my way of life and I now also eat beef (No offense to anyone who doesn’t).

Gandhi once wrote “"If someone were to ask me what the most important outward manifestation of Hinduism was, I would suggest that it was the idea of cow protection," It was 3000 years ago when the faith of the cow first evolved near the Indus River. Trace of cow worshipping was tracked back to Lord Krishna. Cow worshipping were mentioned in texts, popular names used by people such as “Govinda” meaning “one who brings satisfaction to the cows.” Having cows meant you were wealthy and prosper. Milk continues to be part of rituals in India and Nepal. Cows often roam free in cities and streets because they are exalted. As New Delhi rises in population every day, more space is being occupied by car and motorcycles. The mother cow is a threat and danger to the community by starting accidents, huge traffics and tearing up garbage near homes and roads.  City leaders are hiring cow catchers to take most of the cows to reserved care places or the city limits.

As you can see, traditions begin and end in family lines. It is up to you to choose which tradition you want your children to carry on from your generation. Old ones will end and new ones will begin. Cows worshipping has been around for 3000-5000 years and I am writing about it to tell you that it is ending in my family line, but only in my teachings, who knows what my cousins will teach their children. My father stopped eating beef because his mother was not around to influence him anymore and McDonald’s dollar menu didn’t help either. Through my experiences this lifetime with elderly teachings, I have adopted three different cultures and traditions which I absolute love; American, Sikh and Buddhist. Traditions comes and goes, grasp the one that is important to you, that has a meaning to you which may not agree with others but If you like that act because it reminds you of family, ancestry and the meaning of living then you are on the right path.

Sources :

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/holycow/hinduism.html

http://www.saching.com/Article/Hindus-and-sacred-cow---Why-do-Hindus-worship-cows-in-India--Beef-consumption-in-India/123

ANIMAL RIGHTS? and anthromorphism

Scientists will sometimes attribute human traits to non-human creatures whether it be because of personal experience, animal history displaying great attributes, or because of reasons on the basis of mythology.  This is referred to as anthromorphism.  

Anthropology in itself is the study of humans and their interactions with each other, and sometimes the technique of anthromorphism combined with anthropological arguments to promote animals rights.

The question is, is it valid enough to support the argument of promoting animal rights?

There has been reverse anthromorphism for hundreds of years.  Humans have given and been given animal traits for centuries.  It's a sense of respect for some cultures, giving them self names like cheetah because they are extremely fast, and then a sense of disrespect for others  such as calling an enemy an ape (trying to suggest they are primitive...or hairy)  But if you look at ancient mythology from Ancient Egypt and South America many of the idolized or gods have animal characteristics and even animal heads!  It seems that throughout the times, at least part of mankind has always retained the idea that animals in some sense are more knowledgeable than we think.  I mean it makes sense if you think about, flight and the ability to breathe under water are both animal feats that humans could only wish for.

The interchanging of giving animals human characteristics and humans animal characteristics have occurred all the way to the present.  But do animals see the way the world humans do?

It actually has been proven that animals do see the world very differently from man. Some cannot see color and some hear sound differently from people.  Their sense of smell and touch is often above par compared to the abilities of humans.  This in fact has led them to an altered version of our shared universe.

And although they have extended abilities that may be favored by natural selection, we have emotion, and it gives the ability to feel, lose, laugh, hope, and even struggle.  The topic of how much emotional ability is actually shared by humans and animals is still at mystery.

But now you have one insight into the reasons why we should promote animal rights, but what do you believe?

-kk

When it comes to survival, we're animals. When it comes to ancestry, are we afraid we're animals?

So basically I'm taking this biology of anthropology class this quarter as well an environmental anthropology.

I've learned many things about primates and mankind so far, many things which have scared me... for example...

Did you know that bonobo chimpanzees use sex as a substitute for aggression? Meaning that they literally are not fighters..they're lovers.  Whether that's appropriate or not, it results them in having a lot less conspecific casualties as well as more amicable relationships with one another.  Another interesting fact is that within chimps as well (which happen to be the closest primate relative to us...well the closest animal in general to us) practice this strategy called  'infanticide'.  This strategy, still needs a lot of research because it's not quite yet understood completely, but the gist of it is that alpha male chimps will the infants of female chimps that they necessarily want to mate with.  The alpha males do this sometimes with bravado, displaying the killing of an infant as a show, and even engaging in cannibalism afterwards with other alpha males.  The most supported theory for this type of behavior is seen as a reproductive strategy to promise the alpha male the most reproductive success, which by natural selection terms, is survival of the fittest.  This is because when a female chimpanzee just gives birth to an offspring, it is already hormonal and lactating and basically efficiently ready to have another offspring right away.  Therefore, if a male chimp were to engage in reproducing with a chimp that just gave birth and a chimp that did not just give birth, the chimp who just gave birth would not only have much greater chances of becoming impregnated but also carry out the offspring with much more efficiency since it's cycles are already on track.  Which is why biologists such as Sarah Hrdy says that alpha males kill the infant of new mothers, so that they may reproduce with these mothers and ensure themselves a more successful opportunity to reproducing their own offspring.  This has created controversy with many biologists on the topic of whether this is wrong or not, because it is favored by natural selection.  By Darwin's postulates, this act of infanticide is just another act of survival.  But it's cruel demeanor has scientists wondering if it's a "natural fallacy" which is the misunderstanding of thinking that because it is right in nature and occurs by means of selection, that it is right for us as humans as well because after all, we did evolve from the same ancestor as chimpanzees.

Of course by modern means this is ethically and morally wrong,  but what I'm wondering is how did we get to this state where it is morally wrong for us?  How did we develop such self awareness, nonetheless awareness of other people's property and emotion.

In fact, infanticide is not just a thing of primates and animals alike, it has occurred throughout history of humankind in Arabia, Judaism, Christianity, India, China, and even colonial America.  And then there are the few cases that occur today of deranged people who kill their children because they "felt" it needed to be done, for example Andrea Yates who drowned her children because it was better for them to die than to live in her opinion, and that she was actually saving their souls.  For whatever reason it is, it seems that people to this day actually do horrible things to ones they once loved (be it children, or spouses) for reasons that we see astounding, but then when you take a closer look, it almost seems very animalistic or characteristic of Darwin's 'sexual selection' a sub category of natural selection.  For example, when a husband feels the need to murder his wife on the basis he wants a divorce or has an affair with another woman.  If this man were a primate, Darwin would say he did this because he reproduced or mated with his wife and received results that did not outweigh the costs and therefore he must find another mate to reproduce and mate with to increase his "fitness" benefits or survival.

These are all just thoughts and ideas  and what if's, I am not at all saying that natural selection is the cause for murders and infanticide within humankind today.  I am saying, that these animals we evolved from practiced something so evidently wrong to us, but by scientific terms it is just survival.  Then what happened along the way to us to cause us to feel this way, that we commit crimes of this stature today and deem it through insanity and murder?  We are such just, moral creatures that it makes me curious to try and understand how these feelings evolved?  Did pity evolve into revenge which evolved into justice which evolved into what is right and wrong?

We are animals.......but are we really?




-KK