An Article Series from All-Creatures.org 

 

Animal Rights/Vegan Activists' Strategies

What is the Animal Rights Position on Elephants?

From Kim Stallwood
June 2024

While elephants trapped in human hands must be able to live in special sanctuaries exclusively meeting their needs. This is how I understand what an animal rights position would be for elephants. There’s no satisfactory middle ground for elephants where humans aren’t instrumentally using them for selfish and economic purposes.

Photo: Darren Martin

Topsy preoccupies my mind most of the time. I think about her life. The tragic sequence of events, from the day of her capture in Southeast Asia when she was only about a year old to 28 years later halfway around the world in Coney Island, New York when she was fed cyanide-laced carrots and electrocuted to death.

I play out in my imagination how I write her life story, the narrative structure, what Topsy’s voice sounds like to read, and all the details of her life pieced together from contemporaneous newspaper reports and circus yearbooks. These are diaries published by circuses of where they performed, what the weather was like, and which humans and animals took sick, were in accidents, or were fired or killed.

I could talk Topsy for hours. Then, nobody would talk to me. Topsy’s story is a shocking tragedy that, judging from some people’s reactions, is something they don’t want to hear about. And who could blame them? But I want Topsy to be remembered. I don’t want her to be forgotten. I don’t want her life to be a pointless waste. Moreover, when I talk about Topsy, I like to make the point that every animal is (or was) a Topsy. A sentient individual, a subject of a life as the philosopher Tom Regan saw it. From every one of the billions of animals in cages on farms, in laboratories, or held as indentured labour in zoos, circuses, menageries, and all those in the countryside and our homes—everyone is a Topsy.

I was recently invited to make a keynote presentation about Topsy at an animal studies conference at the University of Brighton. It was called Exploring Human-Animal & Multi-Species Relations: Risk Taking in Research Methods. Even though I’ve given many presentations about Topsy before, I used this opportunity to prepare a brand-new talk with a PowerPoint built from scratch.

At the beginning of the presentation, I put them at ease by declaring, I have a policy not to show explicit images of animal cruelty or anything from Topsy’s poisoning and electrocution but there will be images of elephant use. They can watch the film, “Electrocuting an Elephant,” on YouTube in their own time, I tell them.

The talk went well. I read the room and sensed people were paying attention. I explained my understanding of animal biography and talked briefly about some examples, including Elizabeth Hess’s Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human and Anna Sewell’s pioneering novel with the horse as the protagonist, Black Beauty. I outlined Topsy’s life and the men who betrayed her. I described briefly the approach I’m taking in writing her biography, including a graphic novel interpretation to reach a wider audience.

Time was left for questions. Among them was one that struck me and kept me thinking about it for the remainder of the day. I find myself disappointed with the answer I gave. I was asked if I thought there was an acceptable “middle ground” for elephants to live and work and be cared for by their mahouts (keepers). No, I said. Elephants anywhere in the world who are not in their African or Asian native-born environments, which is to say those who are wild-caught or bred in developed countries for zoos and circuses, deserve to live out the rest of their lives in elephant sanctuaries. They are purposefully created and managed in “elephant heaven” to live as far as possible without human interference. The remaining populations of elephants living in their native habitats must be free to fulfil their natural lives in their heritage lands again without human interference.

As I reflected on my answer, I wished I had said something about how the instrumental use of elephants prevents them from living their lives as the destiny that was truly theirs—again, without human interference. Yes, some mahouts caring for some elephants could be based on a peaceful, respectful, and compassionate relationship. But elephants are truly wild animals and have the right to live with their behavioural, psychological, and cultural needs fulfilled. While those trapped in human hands must be able to live in special sanctuaries exclusively meeting their needs. This is how I understand what an animal rights position would be for elephants. There’s no satisfactory middle ground for elephants where humans aren’t instrumentally using them for selfish and economic purposes.

Am I making sense? Do you agree? Or am I wrong? Is there genuinely a middle ground where elephants and humans could peacefully co-exist? How do you understand the animal rights position on elephants?

---

Posted on All-Creatures.org: June 12, 2024
Return to Animal Rights/Vegan Activist Strategies
Read more at Entertainment Abuses Articles