The Flip of a Coin

Speciesism, sexism, racism, sadism... etc are few terms in the English language that represent to a certain degree the human nature which is to assume superiority. How and between which groups is there a superiority struggle is irrelevant because the mere fact that these words have been created to simply assign terminology to human behaviour reflects upon a core human-view, to assume power. Perhaps one of the most renowned phrases in the world (or maybe its just me thats a huge fan of this phrase) is Vini Vedi Vici, I came.. I saw.. I conquered. These are Caesar's words, and already I know of what you are thinking, Caesar (the Tyrant) or, if you're a fan of great leaders, Caesar the Great. Do you see the point of mentioning this? It's the two sides of the argument, like two sides of a coin; they are inseparable. To omit one demonstrates ignorance of the other, but to side with either side of the coin represents a certain degree of probablistic success, mainly 50-50. This coin metaphor is a style of argumentation that may be applied to any situation so as to learn different perspectives of the same argument. So back to the speciesism and sadism, racism and sexism, are they two sides of the same coin? Is there more than one coin, or is the whole coin metaphor an inappropriate means of reasoning?

Questions are the path to Answers!


First of all, speceisism can be considered to be its own coin. Speceisim is prevalent in the world today. "Approximately 96 million pigs were slaughtered in the U.S. in 1994," and now, the year's almost 2010 (Anthology, 394B); safe to assume that the US is slaughtering substantially more pigs than in 1994. Clearly, this is evidence of man's superiority/dominion over the pig. At one point, "humans' assumption of superiority [was termed] humanism" (Anthology, 394B). As humans, I believe it's important that our world view isn't objective in nature rather subjective to our human perspectives. This is the foundation of the coin metaphor we are considering, and while analyzing speceisim, the other side of the coin seems to be humanism. Similar terms but with different connotations. Humanism is specific to the human species, but speceisism suggests that any species can be superior to another which sparks the logical argument that the very term gives humans the ability to realize that they aren't the only party involved. And this view of the bigger picture when concerned with speceisism is what brings about two sides of the same coin. One view of speceisism is that humans have all the power whereas the other suggests that humans may have all the power, but they are part of a system bigger than them and must consider the welfare of all parties involved if they wish to exercise dominion over an extended period of time. May this be verbose, but the verity in it is plain to see. One suggests we are king of this plannet, and the other gives us a sense of the duties of a king.

Some things speak for themselves...


But as king, should humans be cruel to their subjects? I remember hearing stories about merciful kings when I was little, so clearly, there are people who feel that power needs to be exercised fairly, "... with great power comes great responsibility" (cited from Ben Parker in Spiderman 1). History also tells tales of kings who were renowned for their cruelty. Dracula was renowned for this, and his cruelty was so great that a myth grew about his deal with the devil which forced him to feed off of human blood. This relation to blood exists because Dracula would slaughter entire villages of people who refused his authority, and as an example, he would leave all of them staked upon dry wood, leaving them to bleed to death! Another example of cruelty is in slavery. The very nature of this enterprise was to subject one person into the posession of another person. These are examples of sadism in human history, but there are some current examples as well. In 2004, the military determined that "the Abu Ghraib military prisoner torture and abuse" was the result of "a few bad apples" (website). The sadistic nature of humans is evident in history in our relative present and even in youngsters; I have heard too many bully stories. This is interesting as by simply using the term bully I have related humans, animals and sadism. "Over 99 percent of the U.S. chickens spend their lives in crowded confinement" (Anthology, 389); is this not cruelty? These animals can't even spread their wings with the lack of space around them. We are the kings of the chicken; we have total control over its life and death, and we are cruel kings. Clearly, the other side of the sadistic coin is merely the perspective of the party being treated with cruelty. The purpose of one side of this coin is to destroy and the other side is being destroyed.

We need not be this cruel


The two coins we have discussed, sadism and speceisism, apply to both humans and animals alike, but racism and sexism only apply to humans. These are cases when humans are dividing their species based on gender and race. An inescapable discussion with racism is that of slavery. There is so much involved with racism. Animals were considered more valuable than slaves as property (this is an example of speceisism), and masters were generally sadistic towards their slaves, at times beating them simply for amusement. Racism is by itself is an event occuring within a species where one dominates another, but all too often, racism will involve sadistic measures and a speceisist view. On the other hand, sexism is perhaps the most prevalent coin in history and this statement says it all. Think of history as a word comprised of two words, his- and -story. So history is made from his-story. Can you not see the sexist nature of this coin? However, racism and sexism aren't coins on their own; they are in fact the same sign of a coin called discrimination. And as much as a flaw it may be, discrimination is a part of humans, and we can't avoid it. As much as we may dislike it, at one point or another, we have practiced it.

The black chicks are meanies...


It seems as though when you practice any one of the terms we have discussed here. That there is a certain degree of probability involved. What if history had occured slightly differently and white people were, once, slaves of black people? It seems discrimination was a result of the flip of coin. Now that didn't happen, but that's because they all too many white people and black people were a sort of discovery in Africa; white people were technologically advanced, and thus, were more probable to be the superior of the two races. Recall history and realize that this is true. The events that occured are a byproduct of some probability which is determined by a number of factors. Ultimately, everything could be a flip of a coin. Animals could be speceisits towards humans, and if given the opportunity, they could practice sadism against us, but we may never know. The best approach is simple, I'll flip a coin. All coins have only two sides, heads and tails. Wonder how that came about to be. I know that humans don't have tails, but they do have heads. Is this a coincidence? The probability is 50-50, but so far, the odds have been in favor of the head. The future is in our hands, and I've tossed the coin. You call it, heads or tails?

I call tails