Environmental Ethics - Clothed in Fur
Autor: Tim • November 1, 2017 • 1,549 Words (7 Pages) • 751 Views
...
the same category as humans. Animals were created for humans, not the opposite. Although, it is important to not take advantage of animals and treat them poorly but I do think animals were created for human usage. There also needs to be regulations on how animals are treated. They should not be tortured or beaten in the process of humans using them for their meats and fur. As far as reincarnation goes, I disagree entirely. I was raised Roman Catholic so I believe that once a person dies, you either go to heaven or to hell.
Back to the story, the next woman went through the same routine with Clothed-In-Fur giving her a beaver. Once she had made the meal for Clothed-In-Fur, she did not eat. He put a stick outside their lodge and when we went outside he saw that his wife was eating it. His wife was a beaver. From this point on whenever he went out to find food he would bring sticks home for his wife. His wife asked “Now, when you see a brook, wherever you go, always put a (foot) log over it (64).” The man did not do this when he saw a brook but continued on his way. Once he returned to camp he found that his wife and children were gone. He finds another woman who takes him to a village where her father is chief. When talking to the chief a while and brown bear come into the room, they were upset because they had previously asked the woman to marry them. The chief says to Clothed-In-Fur, to pass the test you must stay awake for ten days. Clothed-In-Fur- fails and the bear village moves away. He shot and killed all the bears in the village except the cubs.
I think the point of the author using bears for this part of the story is to reduce the power of bears and humans. Instead of the huge bears having power over the humans, the humans have power over the bears to eat them.
Clothed-In-Fur returns to his home and sees that all his in-laws are there with a Muskrat. His father-in-law allows him to eat it but says to not break the joints at any place. After he had eaten the unbroken bones were gathered up and put into the water. He then kept eating his in-laws and one time he broke a joint, the toe bone. That came back with two toes. Now, at the lodge Clothed-In-Fur was visited by many people who all smoked which was a sign that they are willing to be killed. They noticed that the water level is very low, and that people could come and take the beavers with ease. This offended the beavers and they concealed themselves to they could not be killed. The people bring dogs to find the beavers but the beavers shoo them away. One time an old dog what they feed them and the dog replied the beavers livers. The beavers then allowed themselves to be killed.
I think the author wants to show that there needs to be correct treatment of bones with the dead. This means keeping them intact, returning them to their proper elements and being reclothed in flesh and fur. Ojibwa culture believes that reincarnation actually happens. So if humans eat and use all the flesh,fur and bones, that gives humans and animals big problems on coming back to another life. The part about the beavers hiding from the dogs was because the beavers were under the impression that the dogs were eating everything in the beavers bodies. This is not the case, the dogs were only eating the livers. Once the beavers found this out they decided that it was ok for them to be killed so they can eat their livers. Ojibwa’s view the entire skeleton as important not just the soul. This is why there was such a stress on the entire story about the treatment of bones and not consuming them.
Again, I disagree with this worldview because I don’t think that humans and animals are in the same category. When humans die, they are buried. When animals die, I do not think that there is any part that is sacred but they do need to be killed and treated with respect once they pass.
In conclusion, I found the story Clothed-in-Fur very interesting to read. I had a hard time doing an analysis based on my strong faith in the Catholic Church. It was very hard for me to try and relate and understand
...