Sign in with Facebook
Gloria's Reviews > Animals Make Us Human: Creating the Best Life for Animals
Animals Make Us Human: Creating the Best Life for Animals
by
by
The many fantastic reviews of this book seem to be based more on the person (autistic woman overcoming her disability to achieve a successful career advising the livestock industry on how to treat animals on the way to be nicer to their animals) than the book itself, which is awkwardly written and not that great of a read, to be honest. In Britain it's called "Making Animals Happy," and that would be a more appropriate title than "Animals Make Us Human," which is an interesting thesis but one that Grandin sheds no light on throughout the course of her book. Grandin ends the book by talking about why she never became a vegetarian and instead advised the industry: she met some cattle farmers in the '70s who were very dedicated to their animals, and she thought that they could all be that way. She's since learned differently, especially in the case of chickens, but doesn't address why she didn't become a vegetarian later when she found this all out.... perhaps because she is only well-known because she works for the livestock companies? Anyway, Temple Grandin is like the Barack Obama of animal rights: she makes people feel like "change" is happening and like she really is on the animals' side, when she's clearly not (she designed a better fence to lead cattle to slaughter, which most slaughterhouses now use-- she cried when she first saw the cows going to their death in it but then was able to change her mind that this was a good thing). The same way that people feel good supporting Obama because of his background or characteristics, Grandin makes people feel good that anyone can overcome a disability and that McDonald's really, really cares about the animals.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Animals Make Us Human.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
May 29, 2009
–
Finished Reading
June 10, 2009
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-5 of 5 (5 new)
date
newest »
newest »
I'm actually reading her earlier book now, Animals in Translation, which is much better written and more informative. Whether she is autistic or not should not affect the quality of the writing style-- she did have a co-author for this very reason, I assume. I also respect her for her knowledge, but not for her stance on vegetarianism as portrayed in this book. I thought the explanation she gave in Animals Make Us Human was lame, and I said so. Curiously, the explanation she gives in Animals in Translation makes a lot more sense-- she tried being vegetarian but it didn't work for her. I'm not sure why she didn't say that in her later book.
I agree with you. I teach children with Autism. I have dogs my entire life. When I was a kid we had up to four at a time. I have been training dogs for almost 25 years. I take umbridge with the fact that she has little experience with dogs yet contradicts Cesar Milan who has over 30 years of experience. Reading her work, it's clear. She doesn't know dogs.
Lablover, Cesar Milan is not a good trainer merely because he's done it for a long time. Owning lots of dogs doesn't make you an expert. Research and critical thinking plus hands-on experience alongside a constant process of learning is what makes someone an expert. Cesar has been in several lawsuits for his bad advice, and the book explains it pretty simply that he is proven scientifically wrong in his approach. This is not a book on training dogs, nor does it claim to be. It's about understanding the emotions and best approach to helping animals in our lives.
The good reviews are because she’s been studying this her whole life and knows what she’s talking about. You probably think that humans are dominant over every species and because some popular dog trainer has a fad about dominating over dogs then it must be right. What Cedar and most trainers do doesn’t work for a lot of people because it’s not natural for the species. So whatever you’re preaching here is misinformed and stubbornly so.
Secondly, I think her reasoning behind why she not a vegetarian was quite apparent. She is a pragmatist. she believes that as long as animals are treated humanely (while living and at slaughter) she has no problem with eating meat. This is why she continues to work in the food animal industry -- she is trying to diminish the pain and fear of these animals as they are going to slaughter.
While I am a vegetarian, and have obviously chosen a different stance on the slaughter of animals for food, I find her point of view to fit her quite well as. Furthermore, I respect her life work as she has helped improve the living conditions and treatment of food animals.