Indi and Dog Racism - Article Example

work] Indi and Dog Racism Article Critique Samantha carried her pet dog, Indi, and entered a retail store. A woman aggressively shouted at Samantha not to be bringing in her dog that the woman seemingly feared as of a vicious breed. This is the part in the article that continued to intrigue me no end. The story came alive with dialogue. The incident was a picture that showcased what the story was all about – racism in the matter of animals. What I liked least in the story are the long, long sentences. They should be broken into shorter ones. The confusing sections are found in the following: Paragraph 1: “(Samantha has a pet chicken, for example).” The topic is not Samantha but animals. Therefore, this should be revised to: (The pet chicken of Samantha, for example). Paragraph 2: “Samantha acknowledges ‘Being a pit bull…” This paragraph opens with Indi as the topic. Then there is a sudden shift of subject to Samantha. By inserting the word, “Indi’s owner,” the impact would be made smooth and the shift not abrupt. The corrected version would run like this: “Samantha, Indi’s owner, acknowledges ‘Being a pit bull…” Paragraph 3: The paragraph is too long and hard on the eyes. This should be broken in two. The new paragraph may begin with “BSL fails to address ….” as anyway it begins to explain deeper about BSL - a topic distinct different from the earlier idea being discussed which is dog breed and its general link to BSL. Paragraph 3: The last sentence is too long. It is composed of 145 words and discusses at least two ideas: What BSL fails to do and the difficulties pet dog owners undergo. Paragraph 5: “However, that is an average of less than 20 dog-bite related fatalities per year, presumes accurate reporting of dog breed, and does not take total number of dogs in the breed in the general population into account.” Delete “is” in “is an average” and the thought will be clear. The complete subject actually in this sentence is “that an average of less than 20 dog-bite related fatalities per year,” and the complete verb is “presumes accurate reporting of dog breed…” Paragraph 9: “The popularity of particular breeds ebbs and flows, in the 70s Dobermans were popular, in the 80s ‘pit bulls’ were….” Colon instead should be used after the word, “flows” since a long enumeration begins on the topic of dog breeds by the decades. After these corrections are put into place, no confusion are foreseen that could heavily cause misunderstanding The outline of the article runs this way. Indi is introduced as champion dog, followed by the negative reputation of Pit Bull Terrier breed and what Indi has to endure for being of this breed. How “pit bull” breed came into controversy is discussed next, beefed by statistics on dog bites that are not based on breed. BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) is enacted on state-wide level then because of reported dog viciousness. Medical studies on dog bites come next, but these studies do not highlight breed. Statistics on dog-attacks are compared to non-fatal dog bites. From here, BSL being enacted based on breed incidents is described. BSL is hitting the wrong nail, it is argued, and that it is an ineffective response to sensationalized issues. The presumptions of BSL and why it is ineffective are considered. Because there is no decrease in dog attacks despite BSL, the blame is placed on irresponsible dog owners. Following this, as alternative, are organizations that propose changes. Finally, Samantha as model dog owner is hoped to be imitated. From the outline, it is glaring that if this is about dog racism or discrimination in terms of segregation, the arguments are based on only one incident – that of Samantha and her per dog, Indi. Against this lack, what was repeated over and over was the unfairness of BSL in targeting particular dog breeds. There is no promise that the author will talk whatever was not discussed. The organization of the paper does not seem to be the problem and any re-organization may not provide any additional advantage. A suggestion for the paper is to provide more data like that of Samantha’s case to beef up the impression that BSL is set against the breed of her dog. The discrimination that Samantha’s Indi experienced is indicated to have sprung as an after-effect of BSL. Perhaps there have been cases like Samantha’s to add to the story so that the results would not appear to be anecdotal. A wiser recourse would be to look into research findings along this topic, if there are any. Another would be to conduct a simple research [qualitative approach maybe] by asking open-ended questions to dog owners about dog racism. I find this paper interesting and engaging. Improving it would involve providing balance in the presentation of data. As earlier stated, data on instances of dog racism to go with this article would greatly enhance it. One way to gather this data is simply to conduct perception survey among dog owners. Since the Internet can provide avenues to collect comments, one way perhaps is to post a blog on this case and let it gather comments. Common themes may be found in the feedback which the writer may fairly exploit to enhance the write-up. The idea of dog racism is intriguing and worth looking into. The thesis that there is dog racism based on discrimination from people and largely as an effect of Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is something novel that may act as springboard for other ideas. The way the article is written, although devoid of more statistics, may be said to be persuasive. The article’s topic is actually dog racism and the overall purpose appears to rally people and policy makers to consider the implications of the Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) and perhaps make amendments. The article appeals to those who have direct concerns on animal racism. The author is not explicit about a thesis but that thesis may be gleaned after a thorough reading of the material. If the author has an axe to grind, the expression is done smoothly or professionally on account of the data provided to back up the allegations. The assumption the author gives is that man is expected to be kind to animals, although they are animals; and that any law enacted should consider the sensibilities of animal owners. The work makes a significant contribution even to understanding human beings as a social animal. It can add to man’s understanding of himself in terms of sensibility to other living beings. The concept of human racism is all the more highlighted when animal racism is also an issue. The article presents a host of various materials: primary documents, secondary material, personal observation, quantitative data, and anecdotal accounts. Samantha’s personal communication with the author is effectively used from the beginning of the article up to the end. The only incident that was highlighted to showcase breed discrimination was that of Samantha and her dog, Indi, entering a retail store for the nth time. Yet, it was only then that she was accosted. Inclusion of the incident strongly added freshness and originality to the article. It was followed up by Samantha’s thoughts and it was touching. The writer’s ability to project the theme of dog racism is effectively caught in his writing style and poignant presentation - On this trip, a woman approached Samantha and Indi in a rage and loudly proclaimed that Samantha had “no business bringing such a dangerous THING like that in here.” That thing was Indi, the dog who sat quietly wagging his tail through the entire exchange, unconcerned by the aggressive manner of this woman, and oblivious to the content of their conversation. Next, he finishes it off with Samantha’s feelings from being accosted and highlighting how she looks at her pet dog. It is a reminder that not all people look at animals in the same manner. “You know, I am kind of used to it but it still hurts. He is a wonderful dog and he is my baby. That someone would judge him so harshly and be so violently opposed to his mere existence when they have never even MET him, sucks. It reminds me of racism and it makes me so angry!” says Samantha (Winegarner, personal communication, April 9, 2007). The writer appears knowledgeable about his topic. There would have been no alternative way of arguing this case from the way he did it. When the author disagreed with the way BSL looked at issues, he did it properly, citing facts and figures. His disagreement with BSL is that it will only address a problem temporarily: curtail the breed of the day popular for vicious traits. However, he pointed out that BSL will only “create new problems for bystanders.” Specifically, he said - Gang members today may want a pit bull but tomorrow it will be a Presa Canario, or a Rottweiler. If BSL attempted to keep up with this trend, soon all dogs would be banned or restricted. The topic that the article surely raises is that of dog or animal racism. Since I am much aware about racism among human beings, the article strikes in me a similar manner as would the former topic. It would be very interesting to read on the issue of dog or animal racism. Read More