In western ideology, animals are lower than humans, they are less valuable and soulless creatures to be exploited. Beasts of burden serve those who are capable of controlling them. Colonial violence can be compared to violence toward animals. Animals, compared to humans are helpless, they have no weapons, no language, no intellect. Colonizers force themselves above the colonized, they rule over with technology and justify their dominance with the belief that the colonized are weak and unintelligent, like beasts. South Africa struggles with the dynamic between the former colonial rule and hierarchy. The white man is said to treat black people like dogs. The relationship between animals and humans is mirrored between white colonizers and black Africans.

Humans project their hatred of other humans into animals. Animals represent creatures undeserving of love. Deep racism is justified with biological answers. The concept of race is closely connected to the concept of species, of being from another and having different DNA. abusing animals is seen as a lower crime than if the abuse was on a human. Being compared to an animal degrades a human and decreases the responsibility felt by an abuser. Terms like brute and beast are often used as racial terms. Prisoners and victims of the apartheid were dehumanized because of their race. Dogs symbolize the non whites in South Africa, their treatment in Disgrace changes in David’s mind, he has little respect for the stray dogs, but then feels bad for his daughters dead dogs. Lucy has been an animal rights activist from the beginning of the novel, this is paired with her understanding of the oppression of non whites in South Africa. Her compassion for one is seen in her compassion for the other.

Abuse of women is also paired with imagery of animals. Davil Laurie, in the rape scene, likens Melanie to a rabbit in a foxes mouth. He acknowledges that she is being preyed on, and continues as if he is as righteous as a hunter. His daughter Lucy is an animal rights activist, he is disapproving and considers her love for animals and her love for women as wrong. He disagrees of her being a lesbian.

The attackers of Lucy and David kill their dogs and take pleasure in it; killing the watch dogs meant to keep blacks out. Their aggression toward the animals is race based. They hate the white man and his dogs. “in a country where dogs are bred to snarl at the mere smell of a black man. A satisfying afternoon’s work, heady, like all revenge” (D 110) this complicates the relationship between victims, the rapists are victims of racial hostility, they had been attacked by guard dogs bred to harm black people. Lucy and David had clearly been attacked though. The dogs represent Lucy and David in this scenario. They are in a way ‘racist’ and hateful, but were then killed, the reader feels bad for the animals as they do for Lucy.

Last term we talked about who has the right to tell stories. Whether truth could only come from those who have experienced something directly, or could anyone tell each others story? I, Rigoberta Menchu is a story of an indigenous Guatemalan woman, she emphasizes that her account is a testimony of all indigenous peoples experiences. She believes she has a right to share this testimony accurately because she lived through the struggles described in her book. Menchu wrote about how her people’s history had been muddied because white people had the predominant voice to explain the circumstances of the indigenous. It is very important to her that she told her stories as an indigenous woman. In high school, we read a book called Little Bee, a fictional story of a Nigerian girl refugee in the United Kingdom. We discussed how qualified the author was to write this novel, given that he is a white man who had never known a Nigerian girl refugee. Is he allowed to tell this story even if it is completely made up? I do not think so because it is supposed to represent a current issue and comment on a political matter from the perspective of a group that the author is not a part of or connected to.
I think that Art Spiegelman has dealt with similar questions pertaining to his right to tell his father’s story in Maus. Could his proximity to his father and the events give him enough licenses to rightly publish a book about it? Is his father the only one who could accurately describe the horrors of the holocaust? I do not know, Spiegelman had a lot of power and ability in his storytelling, because it was represented with pictures. The medium of graphic novel gave him more agency to illustrate the story in a voice that was not his father’s. The characters are represented as mice and cats, but this is an interpretation done by Art and not his father. On the other hand, Spiegelman is part of a group who was affected by the holocaust, he is jewish and his family directly bears a huge burden. There is a level of generational trauma experienced by Art which gives him a particular lense to write his story through.
Spiegelman is aware of this dilemma. He feels guilt associated with not having lived through the holocaust himself while benefiting from his father’s experience. He questions his place to be able to use a story not his own. I think that there is a connection between survivors guilt and the right to tell certain stories. In the case of Maus, it would have been impossible for Spiegelman’s father to tell his own story, he died before the book was complete. He was not an author or illustrator either. Many important experiences are held by people who have died, their story can only be told by someone else. This can worsen the survivors guilt because they have to acknowledge again and again that they did not die or escaped the pain. It must have been painful for Spiegelman to listen to his father’s story and know he could never truly understand. Beyond not being able to understand, he watched his novel become a bestseller in his name. There are a pile of issues weighing on Spiegelman. He had not gone through the pain his family did, does his privilege prevent him from writing an accurate story? He survived and made money because of those who did not. I do not think that Art Spiegelman is at fault, but I can imagine that he has guilt to overcome.