Questions 2 -sm

1.The London Zoo took Linnaeus’ method of classification in order to show their animals in a extreme sense of scientific order - unlike contemporary zoos. The way it was designed was not in a natural way but an architectural way that way very cold and controlled feeling. It makes me sad to look at the pictures - I can only imagine how depressing it was for the animals that live in these spaces. 
The term “stamp collecting” meant that zoo’s would want to acquire a complete collection of animals in order to show their status. It wasn’t taken into consideration if the climates would be livable for the animals, if the zoo had the correct land and food resources for them, or what to do with over-population of a species. Most people, I would think, would see the stamp collecting of plants to be humane, but the stamp collecting of animals not. 

2. Natural history nurtured the values to the public that having large collections were something to be sought after because they display your class. People who had enough money took great pride in their exotic collections, thinking it showed that they were well traveled and intelligent. People who had less money would make collections to show their children God's creations and bask in the glory of that. Zoo's made natural history available to more people than ever before. To bring the discussion back to Chicago, LPZ is one of the few free zoo's that exist - believing that NH education should be available to all, no matter your class. 
Its kind of crazy to think that the London zoo was nearly as popular and excitable as the royal family to that population. The creation of the zoo in London extended the logic because it gave greater access to natural science than ever before. Those of a lower class and middle class could now mingle with those upper class people who visited the zoo. Not only were all of the patrons able to learn about themselves by observing the animals - but now they could learn about themselves and their society by mingling in this new environment of social interaction and science.

3. One of the results of the public demand for seeing exotic animals in the late19th century was a lot animals who needed homes once they were no longer cute babies. These animals sometimes carried disease and were often mistreated or not cared for properly. Zoo’s became a place for these animals to go once entertainment no longer needed them or could handle them. We often think about zoo’s as a place for animals to be able to be close to their natural habitat, but as stated in the LPZ reading, within the context of the late 19^th century, there were not enough technological advances to properly care for the animals, exotic or not. Care for life can only be as great as the resources the zoo has. Cy DeVry did the best that he could in order to care for the animals and is considered advanced in his knowledge and care techniques now, but still had to work under the limitations of the park/zoo and politics of the time.

4. In 1977 Berger asks why do we look at animals: We look at animals because we have separated ourselves from animals. We get excited to see animals because we live in a world where they are not a part of our everyday life anymore. I think about how I don’t have any pets but get very excited when I see a dog being walked, but how dog owners don’t react to other dogs being walked when they are walking their pets. I get excited because its still exotic to me. I think about how we see ourselves as no longer reliant on animals for transportation and materials like food and cloth. Its weird to me how people see themselves so different from animals, but clearly we do. A lot of people eat animals, and a lot of people abuse animals and a lot of people wear animals too. Obviously, humans must see animals as different from humans because you would likely not eat or abuse another human or wear another human as shoes, jewelry, or a coat (so gross). But we do these things to animals all of the time – we have just become so isolated from the process of this happening. If humans saw themselves as animals and treated animals as their family then we would have no use for animal rights organizations.

I also liked Berger’s mentioning animals as being our first toys. I had a mean stuffed animal collection when I was a little girl. We are taught from an early age that animals are toys and in my case can be collected. I didn’t play with dolls. I think that it is weird that he makes a point to talk about animals as toys but doesn’t make a point to talk about action figures and dolls as toys. Maybe little humans as toys is a newer phenomenon than 1977. As I thought about this, it started to really started to freak me out that children were viewing “baby” dolls as something marginal from themselves. Does this make those children worse parents, as in feeling like babies/children are something to be treated in a way different from ourselves? I don’t know… just posing a question.

As far as the gazes that animal and man shoot each other… I find his way of speaking about it very interesting, but how does he know? How do I know? It makes sense to me that animals watch us and often will not shoot the same gazes at human because they are so used to our presence. Kind of like my example in the first paragraph about the dog owner’s gaze to other dogs being walked. Once you get used to seeing something you loose your curiosity for it. The animals at the zoo have the gaze that they do towards us because they are so over seeing us every day of their existence. Its like they are the hot girl walking down the street and we are the dirtbags with drool hanging from the corners of our mouths in excitement. The hot girl is used to this attention and will give you the no-life-behind-the-eyes stare in your presence. 

-sm