PETA: Whoopi Goldberg's (Mis) Take on SeaWorld
By Logan Scherer
"It does show these animals in the ways that they can explain to kids. Here's how the whale is, here's what a killer whale is. ... I hope circuses do not go away. I hope that they don't go away, because for a lot of kids, it's the only time they are going to see any animals like this."
-- Whoopi Goldberg on SeaWorld
Whoops! After Whoopi made the statement above, PETA quickly sent a letter to "The View" host asking her to consider that the only things that children learn from visiting a SeaWorld amusement park or a circus is domination and how miserable life is for animals held in captivity. We didn't say the obvious: that yes, the children who saw Tilly kill his trainer, Dawn, did indeed learn that "here's how the whale is, here's what a killer whale does," but that's not exactly the nightmare that you want swimming around in your kid's head for life. Whoopi has written back to say that she respects the good that PETA does but that she and her daughter have enjoyed SeaWorld for years.
We understand that she bonded with her daughter on these outings, of course, but her own experience is a case in point: It clearly shows that SeaWorld gets people to enjoy coming back to watch wild animals do tricks but that seeing the shows fail to open their eyes to the need to leave those animals in peace, in nature, where they belong. Consider the baby elephants Ringling intimidates into becoming unwilling performers after taking them away from their mothers. … I'll bet that, even though Whoopi hasn't thought about this, Whoopi's wrath if someone had taken her daughter away from her would have been a lot like any parent whose child has been kidnapped. Like an orca, she might want to kill.
And think of this: Tilly the orca was seized from his pod in Iceland when he was only 2 years old and has been confined to a cement pool for 25 years, forced to do circus-style tricks for treats. If he doesn't jump, he doesn't get rewarded. If he doesn't tolerate a woman standing on his nose, he doesn't get a snack. And no matter what he does, he never, ever gets to swim free and enjoy the current on his back, and he never gets to follow his heart. Never. That's hardly educational.
Dawn's death seemed to make Joy, Sherri, and Elizabeth think twice about the way that animals are exploited for human entertainment, and we hope that after learning more about SeaWorld's long history of injuries and deaths of both animals and trainers and Ringling's beating of its imprisoned animals, Whoopi will change her mind.
Please join us in very politely asking Whoopi to live up to her own compassion potential by joining the likes of Bob Barker, Matt Damon, and many others by publicly denouncing SeaWorld, circuses, and other uses of live animals for entertainment.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
We should have the same respect for animals and humans, alike.
One group seems to justify its' treatment ( or rather mis-treatment)
of animals, by claiming that God created man in a very special image of him or her---lots of hate groups use that same rationale!
Really what it is, is simply another hate group masquerading as a
religion --claiming superiority over the entire earth---religions -have done more harm to mankind, than have helped...
I love Whoopi and this whole discussion illuminates the problem--instead of insulting someone, have a conversation!!!! To ME.. circuses suck.. so my husband was the one who took our daughter to see them.. PETA , being what it is, takes more radical steps--why don't they go to Italy and go after the death camps of dogs -talk about inhumanity to animals - in beautiful Italy !! STARVED! But people get MONEY to keep the dogs... PETA --GO TO ITALY!!!
I think it's a sad indicator of our society that anyone cares what Whoopi Goldberg thinks about anything. She's a washed-up and unfunny "comedienne." She's shown repeated ignorance about the topic of animals , biology and science , and everything that comes out of her mouth is anti-animal. Why anyone would hire her to comment on anything--or watch her--is really beyond me. It's also ironic that a bisexual African-American woman like her doesn't see any correlation between slavery and the slavery these animals are subjected to. Prejudice between species, like human and non-human animals is known as "speciesism"--and it's just as bad as sexism , racism , homophobia and any other kind of "ism." I look forward to a day when we have more intelligent, informed commentary, dialogue and "talking heads" in general on TV .
I find your comparison of slavery to humanity's position on the food chain, if you will, innapropriate and offensive, and I am a man not easily offended. Pretty much the only way to get a rise out of me is to utterly disrespect the victims of so great a human catastrophe as slavery or the Holocaust. Animals are not people.
Its always the guys who think of themselves as unflappable staunchions of manly vigor who make that statement, as if it is even on topic. It isnt. If animals were people then they would check out of Ringling Bros zoo like it was a bad hotel . Sea World, open the levee coz we are swimmin' home now. richard we are talking about the fact that humans - that is, people - are doing unkind things to animals-that is, mammals with less power than humans (people). So we are talking about a power balance or lack thereof. You might actually think twice about your denial of the concept of slavery in this instance, if you were held captive, contained in small spaces, beaten or electrocuted and made to do tricks over the entire span of your life. Especially if the conditions you were held in were extremely hostile as is the case with some of the animals in question. For me its more analogous to a life sentence, hard-time, not slavery, but whatever. Your supposition that we are just crazy people headed down a wayward path of reasoning because we are concerned about maltreatment of animals (and they arent people!) is really smug and also really unimaginative. Your apparent belief is that if a being has less power to ward off violence and cruelty, it has less moral right to live without being abused. How pathetic, insensitive and heartless you sound.
Putting people in small spaces, beating and electrocuting them, and and making them do tricks their entire life is wrong , not because they are more capable of warding off violence , but because they are self-aware, self-owning beings. Animals are not self-aware, self-owning beings. While animals are conscious and show responses to stimuli in ways that certainly suggest that, for example, abusing or needlessly harming them is wrong, they have no concept of the self, and therefore cannot own themselves. The vileness of slavery stems from the total violation of that person's self ownership. Animals do not have that original self-ownership, and so slavery, the violation of self-ownership, is impossible. The "wayward path of reasoning" you have taken does not stem from your desire to be concerned with the maltreatment of animals, certainly there are things in this world done to animals that are legitimately abuse and should be stopped, but rather, from your projection of human self-ownership onto animals.
Your beliefs indicate that you have been schooled well in the vernacular of the 50's, but since then the world has moved on. Many people, a lot more learned than you or I, have studied animals and found quite the opposite is true. It's a bit more complex that simply 'response to stimuli'. Yes, they may have or not have some of the components of the human brain, but again that really isnt the point. The concept of 'self-ownership' is a man-centered argument that attempts to justify an untenable position here. The fact that animals cant go downtown and file papers does not imply that they are not inviolable. The creatures of the Earth have individual spirit, the fact that you have opposable thumbs and a warring brain doesnt make you superior to them. You can choose to keep believing in the way that you do, I really dont care. I do suspect that your views also lead you to believing that certain classes of humans are less able to be 'self-owning' as you put it, therefore are subject to being guided, ruled or dictated to by someone such as yourself who has the arrogance to believe such malarkey. Your comment about my projection doesnt even make sense, so I wont try to respond.
Perhaps "response to stimuli" was a poor choice of words. Will this make you feel better? Animals feel pain, fear, happiness, etc. What they do not feel, or have any concept of, is self-awareness or ownership. It's the same reason computers don't have rights. All rights stem from self-ownership. Self-ownership does not, as you have foolishly implied, come from an ability to file paperwork. It is something you possess from the moment you become self-aware. (when that is is unclear, but I'm not here to start another debate on abortion , so we'll move right along) It does not come from the government , god , society , or the bank, it comes from your mind. Animals do not have that ability. Your assertion that self-ownership is a 'man centered' argument is absolutely right. ALL arguments are man-centered! The very concept of argument is man-centered! My opposable thumbs are handy, but meaningless, it truly is the MIND that does, in fact, make me, and all other self-owning beings, superior to animals . You can spew your Dances With Wolves bullshit about "creatures of the Earth" having an "individual spirit," but it's just not true. Animals (creatures of the Earth) DO NOT have even the CONCEPT of an "individual spirit." Your assertion that I believe certain classes of humans are subject to being guided, ruled, or dictated to is vile and unfounded. Even the most severely handicapped human is capable of rudimentary reason and the understanding that they are people, that they therefore must own themselves, that they therefore have rights. My comment about projection makes perfect sense. You assume because you see animals exhibiting fear, pain, happiness, etc., things that you feel, that they are like you. They are not. You are a self-owning, rational being. They are not.
Specieism is no different from sexism , racism , homophobia, etc., except for one crucial factor, the part where there is a significant biological difference between animals and people that makes this discrimination appropriate. Animals are not self-owning, rational beings, and therefore do not have the same rights that humans, which are, do.
There's very little that we know about the animal world that warrants any claim of animals being irrational creatures who can therefore be discriminated against.
On what basis do you make such an assumption? Do you understand the language and thought processes of animals? You have no empirical evidence whatsoever which proves that the only one being irrational here is YOU.
And that irrationality stems from one of the biggest flaws of human nature: Vanity
Ask any wildlife researcher about the incredible discoveries they are making about animal psychology, the crucial role animals play in maintaining the ecological balance in nature and the rational decisions they make in the context of their natural environment to survive and you might think twice before making such ignorant statements.