Woke movement has shifted our tolerance of cruelty in chasing perfection in competition

The woke movement is an evolving phenomenon. It originally meant being alert to racial prejudice and discrimination. It's use expanded to encompass awareness of various social inequalities including sexism, homophobia and other forms of oppression.

In 2024, 'woke' is often associated with social justice activism and progressive politics. Focusing on identity politics and systemic issues like white privilege and advocacy for marginalised groups and challenging social norms. 

The word "woke" has become divisive. Some people dislike it; others support it passionately. It's an important concept and it has altered society in Western countries. Supporters emphasise its importance in highlighting injustice while critics view it as promoting excessive sensitivity or political correctness.

But in my view, its meaning has broadened and it's influence has broadened to encompass the lowering of acceptance of abuse and cruelty in chasing perfection in competition.

This can be seen in various ways currently with the castigation of Charlotte Dujardin who used a lunging whip to abuse a horse when training in dressage. It was horse abuse, no doubt about it and objectionable but the horse was not hurt and Charlotte Dujardin's achievements have been trashed. She's been banned from competing in the Paris Olympics, she lost the chance to achieve another gold medal and she has lost her funding by the UK authorities.

What she did was not unusual. Deploying a long whip to train a horse to raise its feet in a stationary trot called the piaffe is not unusual but she overdid it. There are other aspects of dressage which are today probably deemed unacceptable such as the position of the head which is alleged to damaged ligaments and impede breathing. This was seen as a fair practice; now it is not.

As an extension of that, in the Paris Games, modern pentathletes will ride horses for the last time. At Los Angeles in 2028, the equestrian event will be replaced by an obstacle course of high walls, rope swings and scramble nets. The change came about because in 2021 a trainer punched a horse called Saint Boy. A scandal followed and Los Angeles threatened to drop the whole sport. This ended the 19th century concept of the pentathlon using a horse.

We can extend the concept of woke further because in the UK, the BBC's most popular show, Strictly Come Dancing, is going through an existential crisis because three professional dancers have been implicated in abusive treatment of their amateur, celebrity competitors when training them too hard. One complained and then another complained and the professional dancers are being investigated. They've lost their contracts with the BBC and their careers are harmed.

At the moment there's been no findings by the investigation and therefore these are allegations but the cultural change brought about by the woke movement has, I believe, infiltrated areas such as this BBC show and altered the mindset of the competitors to the point where they will no longer accept what they perceive as bulling and abuses, as inequality, as unfairness, when seeking dancing perfection. It's a change in societal norms in the competitive areas of life and entertainment.

The argument is that people in general and those that watch these competitions should be prepared to accept lower standards in the interests of protecting the welfare of horses in the case of the Olympics and the celebrity competitors in the case of Strictly Come Dancing. It's a fine balance between seeking excellence and how far you go in that quest and how much you put competitors through in achieving excellence.

In the case of people they will do it voluntarily initially. In the case of horses and other animals it's even more important because they do not give their consent. 

I would argue that the Dujardin alleged abuse is more fundamentally wrong than any abuse against a person in seeking perfection and that would apply to many other Olympians such as those representing China. 

Chinese gymnasts are picked at a very young age. The take them young and shape them as children putting through highly rigorous training programs leading to physical punishments and injuries. China can do this because it's a quasi-dictatorship. People do what they're told to do and they become accepting of it.

But in the West, in democracies, they have the power of self-expression due to equalities bestowed by the democratic process emboldened by the woke movement.

Postscript: in the paper today there is a story about Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest man. It actually concerns one of his offspring, his boy who transgendered to become his daughter and who has named herself Vivian Jenna Wilson. Musk said that his son "had been killed" by the "woke mind virus". He claims that he has lost his son and that he is dead and he blames the woke movement. His daughter, Jenna, blames him for being an absent and cruel father who criticised her femininity and queerness. An example of the way that the "woke" concept polarises people's views including within a family to the point where the family is broken.

Key Points:

• There's no single, universally agreed-upon definition of "woke."
• Its usage is often subjective and depends on the speaker's perspective.
• The term has become a lightning rod in cultural and political debates.

------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

The phrase ‘people of color’ does not make scientific sense

Currently, there is a significant debate surrounding Critical Race Theory (CRT), an academic construct that scrutinizes race and racism. It's a complex subject, yet proponents of CRT associate animal welfare—or the absence thereof—with their theories. Consequently, discussing race, racism, and CRT indirectly involves a discussion on animal welfare, which underscores its relevance to this website. In upcoming articles, I plan to explore CRT within the realm of animal welfare, as it presents a fascinating and crucial topic that bridges human culture and animal welfare.

This is a cross-post. Why? Because Google is ignoring the other post. 😻😉💕

Image: MikeB

This morning, I'd like to address a concern that has been on my mind for some time: the term "people of colour" preferred by some black individuals. It's a term that gently encompasses all black people, and there are those who advocate for its use. However, there is no consensus among black people for the term "people of colour," even though it is inclusive and recognizes the common experiences of racial discrimination shared with other non-white races.

While "black" is an appropriate term, "people of colour" may better represent the heritage and cultural background of some individuals. The term "black" focuses on skin colour, while "people of colour" places emphasis on the individual first.

Despite this, the phrase "people of colour" has its critics. It has been criticized for being too general, grouping together a wide array of cultures, and defining people by what they are not (white), which can be seen as a form of "othering." Some black individuals prefer the term "black," which is considered acceptable today, even though there has been a trend towards using "people of colour."

Science versus culture

Now, onto the scientific aspect. I'm examining the physics of the colors white and black. There's a notable discrepancy between these physical properties and the aforementioned phrase. This discrepancy is somewhat troubling as it suggests a discord between science and culture, whereas I would expect harmony between the two. Science is universally applicable, regardless of cultural background.

In the realm of light physics, white is the combination of all colors, not their absence. Red, green, and blue are the primary colors of light (additive color system), and their combination yields white.

In contrast, black signifies the absence of visible light. A black object appears so because it absorbs all light wavelengths and reflects none to our eyes. Black is not a color on the light spectrum; it represents the total absence of light. In reality, a black object contains pigments that absorb light, which is why it appears black, though it is seldom completely black.

It's clear that white people are not entirely white, and black people are not entirely black. "People of color" have more skin pigmentation, which absorbs light and gives their skin a darker appearance, while white people's skin reflects light back, making it appear lighter.

Biologically, white people are 'people of colour'

The point I wish to convey is that technically, white people could be considered "people of colour". Scientifically, one might argue that white, being a combination of all colours, could fit the description more accurately than black.

However, "people of colour" is a term deeply rooted in social and cultural identity, not just a literal interpretation of colour. It specifically denotes individuals who are not categorized as white within the context of race and their collective experiences. Thus, despite the scientific perspective on colour composition, "people of colour" remains a designation for certain racial groups.

This is simply a notion I felt compelled to share, and it has an indirect link to animal welfare. Please bear with me.

Some more on CRT - summary:

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an academic framework that examines race and racism. Here are some key things they say:

• Racism is systemic: CRT argues that racism isn't just individual prejudice, but rather ingrained in laws, institutions, and policies. These structures create racial inequalities even if no one intends it. Source: Wikipedia.
• Laws aren't neutral: CRT scholars say laws appear neutral but often have unequal outcomes for different races. For example, seemingly race-blind housing policies might unintentionally perpetuate segregation. Source: Britannia.
• Race is a social construct: CRT views race as a category created to maintain social hierarchies, not a biological fact. Source: Education Week: What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?

It's important to note that CRT is a complex field with ongoing debate. This is just a basic overview of some core tenets.

--------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Anger as elderly Chinese insist youngsters give up their seat on public transport

On social media there are videos of young people refusing to give up their seats for older people on the subway. Some elderly people insist that a young person gives up their seat. The young person refuses and there is a clash. It's happened more than once and each time someone has videoed the clash. See Twitter/X video below.

It seems that some elderly believe that it is a duty for the young to relinquish their seat on public transport to the elderly and this cultural aspect of Chinese society is deeply engrained.

In contrast it seems that the young Chinese have divested themselves of this cultural obligation which they see as a courtesy. 

The old think it is a duty while the young see it as a courtesy. It is a clash of culture within Chinese society between young and old.

It probably reflects the modern evolution of Chinese society. I can bring cats and dogs into the discussion here because the old fashioned Chinese culture regarding cats and dogs is that they are utilitarian. This results in abuse. The modern trend is to treat cats and dogs are companions leading to better treatment. There are grass root animal welfare organisations in China run by young animal advocates for instance.

Giving up you seat on public transport to an elderly person is a courtesy not a duty. So these insistent elderly people have got a bee in their bonnet about their rights. It seems that they are angry and discontented. They are taking it out on the young.

There is internal stress in Chinese society it appears.

On June 16, security was called when a young man on a Shenyang subway crumbled after an old man demanded that he'd give up his seat for him. In a video of the incident, which soon went viral, the young man can be heard screaming: "Are you giving me money? No? Then don't bother me! I'm just happy to be sitting here. What's wrong with me grabbing a seat? - What's On Weibo.

Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion on Chinese social media about young people refusing to give up their seats for older people on the subway, sometimes leading to explosive situations. On June 16, security was called when a young man on a Shenyang subway… pic.twitter.com/C5lTvVNIiQ

— Manya Koetse (@manyapan) July 7, 2024

Here is another incident:

Another subway incident went trending a week later. On June 24, a 65-year-old man started harassing a young woman on Beijing Subway Line 10 after she refused to give up his seat to him. The man became aggressive, started slapping the woman, and put his cane in between her legs, trying to force her to stand up. The incident caused outrage on social media and Beijing police later detained the man.

Another subway incident went trending a week later. On June 24, a 65-year-old man started harassing a young woman on Beijing Subway Line 10 after she refused to give up his seat to him. The man became aggressive, started slapping the woman, and put his cane in between her legs,… pic.twitter.com/khVr47hlJN

— Manya Koetse (@manyapan) July 7, 2024

Does this indicate something more profound is happening within Chinese culture? Are the elderly generally unhappy and taking it out on Gen Z? Are stresses being built up in China?

---------------------

From Google Gemini:

Giving up your seat to an elderly person on public transport falls more on the side of courtesy than a strict duty.

There might be designated priority seating on some public transport that requires you to vacate the seat for someone who needs it, but in general, it's a social norm and a kind gesture.

Here's why it's seen as courtesy:

• It's voluntary: You choose to offer the seat, not because you're forced to.
• There can be exceptions: There might be unseen reasons why someone needs to sit (invisible disability, for example).

However, it's a widely accepted courtesy because it shows respect for someone who may have difficulty standing for long periods.

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Chinese call Western food "White People Food" (dull) but 27% of Chinese in China ate wild animals before Covid

The South China Morning Post says that Chinese citizens think that European food is bland and boring to put it mildly. They probably think it's even worse than that and they call it "white people food". They are referring to salads, boiled eggs, chicken breast et cetera. Healthy food. I've just written about Novak Djokovic's diet which is super-healthy as a refinement upon the healthy European diet.

But the Chinese disgust of healthy European food has resulted in some quite extraordinary criticisms. Clearly, the Chinese living in China like their food to be very spicy and super tasty. But they don't mind if it is unhealthy or if its production was obscenely cruel.

White People Food as per China. They hate the stuff! Image: South China Morning Post.

"The point of the white people’s meal is to learn what it feels like to be dead, but I’ve taken two bites and it was so bad it made me realise how alive I am,” wrote one poster who tried a serving of plain crackers, cheese and ham.

Ah, the intoxicating white people’s meal,” wrote another sarcastically, posting a photo of sliced tomatoes and a banana.

You get the drift. They are being sarcastic about European healthy food. And that's the point. It is healthy. Some Chinese think that there is no point in being healthy and living longer if you're so miserable eating such boring food 😎.

Word of the week is "white people food", a recent trend explained by Zilan. It's inspired by the lunches of white people that Chinese people have observed in real life or in the media, with three characteristics: simple ingredients, simple preparations, and an unappetizing taste. - Manya Koetse of What's on Weibo.

But I would like to present a counterargument. Think of the wet food markets in China where Covid-19 ostensibly started or was it the Wuhan Institute of Virology when they were messing around with biowarfare for the military (coronavirus from bats found in mineshaft)?

In Chinese wet food markets, they slaughter wild animals in an unregulated way (hack them to bits). Perhaps that has changed since SARS and Covid-19. But these traditional habits run deep. Eating pangolin scales for example comes to mind. They are pretty well exterminating the pangolin entirely on the planet because of their fascination with the scales which they superstitiously believe brings them health benefits (entirely unsupported by science).

Pangolins are being poached to extinction to supply INEFFECTIVE traditional Chinese medicine

What about cat and dog meat? Both horrendously brutal and obscene habits which includes the barbaric killing of dogs and cats. Okay, apparently it is only a small proportion Chinese in China who eat cat and dog meat. Most of them in the south of the country.

But then again, many millions of dogs and cats are killed for this market. So, it is not a small business. In fact, it is probably very big business and these often-domestic animals are also eaten because of superstitious reasons.

No doubt they spice up the meat (the flesh) but do you think that Europeans have a greater right to criticise this Chinese diet then they have of our diet? I think we do. I'm not saying that the chicken in a chicken salad has been raised and looked after well on an intensive farm. They haven't. Europeans have their way with livestock and it is unpleasant but nothing matches the hell of the cat and dog meat markets.

At least, ostensibly, chickens and other livestock are killed under regulated conditions in abattoirs with the intention of inflicting minimal pain. But in China in the dog and cat meat market they have no conception of pain or the sentience of the animals that they brutally kill. It doesn't enter their head. If they did, they wouldn't do it.

So, relatively speaking, boring European salads take the moral high ground compared to the Chinese dog meat dish which originates in hell on earth for the dogs. The dog meat market is managed and administered by devils. Devils on Earth but not in hell.

Note: the 27% statistic comes from a study: Attitudes towards Wildlife Consumption inside and outside Hubei Province, China, in Relation to the SARS and COVID-19 - https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10745-020-00199-5

It is crazy bad to teach a kid of 6 to shoot an animal for fun

Please click on this link to see the image. It has to be on another page where there are no advertisers as they might object. Sorry. The link opens another tab so you stay on this page.

A tweet on the above image by MoS and which I agree with:

"I don't care what anyone says, THIS IS child abuse. At that age the children should be taught about life and the wonders of nature, including the many species of wildlife. Many parents thrust their love of killing animals onto their offspring teaching them life is worthless!!!!"

Many parents such as the one in the image teach their children that animals are NOT sentient creatures able to feel pain. This kid does not know that he has caused a massive amount of pain and distress. It is an aspect of sport hunting which is never discussed by the shooters. For the child it is target practise. It is fun. There is no price to pay; no downside. It is a game. The dad is to blame.

How is humanity to become more civilised and improve animal welfare which is a hallmark of civilisation? How we treat the more vulnerable than us is a measure of our moral code and civility.

This father is educating his child to become like him: an unthinking brute when it comes to his relationship with animals.

Animal welfare is about education; what you put in the minds of the kids. They are the future of animal welfare. Good education invariably improves animal welfare in general.

The more one reads on animal sentience and animal abuse the more you realise that human ignorance is the foundation of animal cruelty.

What about fishing? People see fish as nuts and bolts; non-animate creatures. Wrong. They feel pain. Just an example.

Hunting traditions are throwbacks to the ancient past; hundreds if not thousands of years ago when hunting was necessary to survive.

When hunters say it is their culture based in old, well-established traditions to hunt they are admitting that their minds are rooted in a past when humankind was far more ignorant. That defence for sporting hunting is an admission of ignorance.

These sorts of traditions need to be put in the garbage bin asap. It is not just about the pain caused. Conservation is massive these days as humankind presides over the mass extinction of animal species.

And what about that good old-fashioned word 'compassion'. I guess it is not in dad's vocabulary.

We can't show what the Vietnamese cat meat traders do to cats as it is too graphic

Philosophically speaking

Funny that? What the Vietnamese cat and dog meat traders do to cats and dogs is so bad and so graphic that we can't show it. I understand that. We shouldn't see the most gruesomely cruel aspects of this business because it harms us. 

Philosophically speaking that is a very peculiar thing to say. We can protect ourselves from looking at the extreme cruelty that humans perpetrate upon cats but at the same time we allow that extreme cruelty to take place. If that isn't speciesism, I don't know what is.

The fact that looking at extreme animal cruelty is harmful to us surely must remind us that it should never happen. The best way to protect ourselves from looking at extreme animal cruelty is to not do the animal cruelty in the first place!

Vietnam

Vietnam is as bad as China when it comes to cat and dog meat. They treat stray and domestic cats as free livestock to be snatched from the streets and brutally killed and then eaten. It's a good business because the livestock is free! There's no need to farm the livestock, to feed it, to care for it. They simply steal it and kill it.

The tweet

And it's not just dog meat trade that's common. Cat meat trade is also very common in Vietnam. I cannot share most of the content our brave volunteers in Hanoi, Vietnam were able to collect because it's just too graphic but this is how they are cramped up in cages.

The video

I cannot watch this video. I simply uploaded it. It comes from Twitter. One thing comes to mind immediately. These are defeated animals. And they are thrust together, crammed into a disgusting cage, in the most abysmal conditions. 

Domestic cats have a home range normally. They need space around them. In an ideal world that space might be many acres. Here they are on top of each other. Emotionally crushed. Demoralised. Anxious. Terrified. They can do nothing but accept their brutal fate. This is the nadir of animal cruelty in my book.

And, the international community entirely accepts it. The Vietnamese government accept it as normal. Nothing is done to stop it. It goes on year after year. The people who defend the cat meat business ask: what is difference between this and farming animals? 

This is not farming. There are no regulations in the cat meat businesses. Farmed livestock is slaughtered under regulated conditions. The objective is to slaughter the animals humanely so that they don't feel pain.

These cats are going to feel tremendous pain before they die. The whole process is essentially cruel. That is a big difference. And secondly, when we domesticated cats there was not an agreement that we could kill them brutally and eat them. 

The agreement was that we supported each other. That is how cat domestication came about in the first place. What we see here was not on the cards. This was not projected. It is a breach of that unwritten agreement by humans. It is foul animal abuse of the worst kind.

Tradition and culture

The underlying problem, as is the case in China, is that there is a culture of eating cat and dog meat in Vietnam. But that culture is based upon an ancient tradition going back perhaps one or 2000 years. It is bringing an ancient tradition into the modern world which does not work. This is because 1000 years ago people were less civilised and less educated about animal welfare. Traditional practices bring forward into the modern world animal cruelty.

China celebrates the domestic cat in huge cat wall murals and yet is simultaneously and culturally cruel to them

OPINION: China celebrates the domestic cat huge cat wall murals and yet is simultaneously and culturally cruel to them far too often with no laws to protect them.

The photos are on Twitter. The murals seem to me to show a schizophrenic attitude towards the domestic cat in China. China's culture states that companion animals need to be useful and if they can no longer be useful, you can eat them. Not good and a violation of the unwritten agreement between domestic cat and human.

And the simple fact that Beijing obstinately refuses to create animal welfare laws strongly indicates a lack of respect for the cat, dog and other sentient creatures.

What kind of developed country refuses to enact animal welfare legislation? A backward one. But China is not backward. They are very advanced in many respects.

The problem is that the CCP (中國共產黨) is rooted in the past in respect of attitudes towards animals. The culture is rooted in tradition and you can read about the Chinese tradition concerning animals by reading what Ai Weiwei says. He is the famous Chinese contemporary artist living in Portugal. He does not fit in with the Chinese way of life. Click here for his thoughts.

Tradition holds back the development of more advanced and enlightened thoughts on animal welfare. 2,000 years ago, the word was far crueller to animals than today. China in rooted in that era.

Ms Wang met a cat seller on the sidewalk in China

OPINION: Once again, I can't look at the video below. Here's an insight. If you write about China's relationship with domestic and street cats as portrayed on social media IT CAN HARM YOU. Yes, very much so. If you are sensitive to the sentience of animals. If you care about animal welfare as I do. And as many others do as well.

Ms Wang met a cat seller on the sidewalk in China. Screenshot.

I feel a duty to spread the word about what is happening in China. It is one of those countries which throws up some horror stories of animal cruelty. This can only happen under an attitude that in general disrespects animals. Pakistan is another country which is woefully out of step with the world in this respect and very backward.

This disrespect is SCREAMED out from China to the rest of the world by the stark and entirely unacceptable fact that they don't believe in animal welfare laws to protect animals. There are almost none and there no umbrella animal welfare law such as we see in every country in the West.

Animal protection through legislation is a staple of all developed countries. Not so for China, the country with world's second largest economy and destined to have the largest in the not-too-distant future. 

This is not an omission borne out of carelessness but a deliberate act by Beijing to allow the Chinese culture to thrive which includes cruelty to animals.

International pressure needs to be applied to the PRC (People's Republic of China) to change their ways. To upgrade themselves and drag their sorry asses into the 21st century.

The tweet

Animal lives don't seem to matter. They are often treated as commodities, without compassion. Right now, life for cats seems to be very dangerous. The story: Rescuer : I feel very pitiful. May 13, Changde, Hunan, China. Ms. Wang met a cat seller on the pedestrian street.

Location

The video

For how long should I cuddle my cat?

For how long should I cuddle my cat? The short answer is not long. Image: MikeB.

These are my unresearched views on the topic. Please share yours in a comment as I'd be pleased to hear from you.

What do cats do?

For how long should I cuddle my cat? This is a question people ask on the Internet. The short answer is not long (normally, but there are exceptions). How often do you see cats cuddling each other? And if you do see one domestic cat with their 'arm' (foreleg) around the other (which happens) for how long do they do this? To the first question the answer must be rarely if not sleeping together and to the second question the answer must be for a short time (unless sleeping together).

Domestic cats regard us as surrogate mothers. That's why we keep them in a mental state of kittenhood. On that basis, they wouldn't expect to be cuddled, human-style, by their feline mother other than for a short time unless they are sleeping together. That's a point worth making I feel.

Sleeping together

There is probably a bit of an exception here. Sometimes cats can settle down on a cold winter's night with their human and spend hours with the arm of their caregiver around them. A quiet, gentle cuddle. But this is I feel an exception to the general rule.

It is a state of affairs where humans can share their behavior with cats and dogs.

Cat cuddles a dog friend sleeping. Image in the public domain.

Cultures

This is really about a clash of cultures. The human race has a culture of cuddling each other when needed. And it is needed quite often as a form of reassurance and friendship. It can be part of a greeting or a departure. It's a sign of affection indeed love. We know all these things.

Cat greetings and contacts

But domestic cats don't have the same culture. When they greet in a friendly way, they do so with their tail held erect with the end just flopping over slightly (tail-up greeting). They might touch noses having approached each other (the nose touch greeting).

In subsequent interactions they may rub against each other flank-to-flank. One cat's tail made curl over the other cat's back. These behaviours happen quite fleetingly. They are delicate movements.

But as mentioned there can be long-term cuddle contact when resting and sleeping.

Devon Rexes cuddle. Image in public domain.

Human cuddle

The human cuddle is quite a forceful action. There is an element of squeezing in the human cuddle. This is likely to be uncomfortable for a domestic cat even if they have a close bond with their human caregiver.

And of course, the cuddle means that the two parties are in very close proximity. They are in contact. The human is much larger than the domestic cat. We can be intimidating. They live in a land of giants. We need to be sensitive to that.

If we place our head close to their head, they can feel intimidated. If we squeeze them at the same time, it can be uncomfortable as mentioned. These elements combine to make the experience perhaps tolerable but not particularly enjoyable for some cats.

And if it is enjoyed because they become habituated to it as it happens a lot, they'll normally accept it for a relatively short period of time perhaps around 30 seconds.

Body language

In fact, domestic cats tell you when they want to get down or stopping cuddle. They may wriggle a bit or if you are carrying them at the same time as you see in the picture, they may twist their bodies and look towards the ground to indicate they want to get down.

Wild cat ancestor

The answer comes from observing domestic cat behaviour. Domestic cat behaviour is the product of evolution of the African wildcat. This wildcat is solitary. The domestic cat has learned to be sociable within the human environment.

But essentially this solitary character is within the domestic cat and this is the last factor as to why domestic cats will normally accept being cuddled (but not always because it depends upon the individual cat's character) but for a time which is shorter than the human would wish for.

For our benefit

It perhaps is worth reminding ourselves that when we cuddle our cat, we often do it mainly for our benefit. We are seeking reassurance. We are looking for a friend and companionship. So, we do it for ourselves and therefore we can only expect that our cat will accept it rather than seek it.

Cats are individuals

That said, each cat has their own personality as mentioned and therefore sometimes cats will ask to be picked up and cuddled if, in the past, they have learned to understand that it is a sign of friendship from the human caregiver and enjoyable. Cats do pick up on human behavioral traits and some learn to copy them or integrate them into their livestyles.

In the USA, keeping cats indoors full-time opens the door to declawing

Although there is a huge cultural difference between British and American cat owners with respect to declawing, a major cat caretaking difference is the fact that many more Americans keep their cats indoors full-time than Brits. The reason primarily is that there are more predators of domestic cats in America than there in Britain. In fact, there are none in the UK other than dogs and perhaps the odd fox who is ambitious enough to try and attack a cat.

Poster by Kattaddorra (Ruth).

Another reason why there is a growing number of full-time indoor in America is because there are more urban dwellers in America as the human population grows. Outdoor cats have ample opportunities to scratch on objects such as fences and trees. The same cannot be said about indoor cats. Therefore, they carry out their claw-servicing routines on their owner's furniture which irritates and which leads to the convenience of the declawing operation. But that is where the culture difference comes in because when a cat scratches furniture it does not mean that you should remove their claws. You find humane alternatives.

The culture that supports declawing is hard to shift. It is deep-seated. Declawing started in the 1950s. A single veterinarian had the profitable idea possibly inspired by the declawing of cats used as bait to train fighting dogs. It grew from there.

Part of this culture difference is possibly because Americans are more demanding of their freedoms under their constitution. They love their freedoms and do not want the interference of others and the law to curtail them. They want the right to make decisions about how to raise their cat including removing the claws.

To that starting point you have to throw into the mix the attitude of many veterinarians in America. They facilitate the attitude of the cat owners who want their cats declawed. They sometimes offer discount service and fail to explain the operation. Many Americans are misinformed by their vets as to the nature of the operation: a partial amputation and not the simple removal of the claw. This is the exact opposite to what they should be doing because to facilitate it for their owner's convenience is to totally ignore their code of ethics as stated in their oath

I'm sure that Americans hate a Brit writing about declawing which I've done hundreds of times because they probably feel they are being preached to by somebody outside their jurisdiction who has no right to do it. I understand that feeling but in the modern age anybody can comment on anything because the Internet rubs out all the boundaries on the planet.

I've yet to see an accurate, definitive figure as to the number of indoor cats in America. Or the percentage of cat owners who keep their cats indoors full-time. It's strange that. You'd think there'd be some definitive answer but there isn't based on my research. I've seen a figure around 50% or higher. The number is increasing.

If somebody knows a good, accurate figure then please tell me a comment. But what we do know is, as mentioned, there are more full-time indoor cats in the US than there are in the UK. It's ironic, too, that the reason why Brits allow their cats outside is for welfare issues. They believe that the cat has to behave normally and naturally and they can only do that if they have access to the outside. Of course, the outside is dangerous in terms of traffic but they weigh up those risks and decide that overall, the benefits outweigh the risks of injury or death. One of the most common causes of death for domestic cats in the UK is the road traffic accident.

But perhaps it might be fair to say that Americans have a more 'human rights are superior to animal rights' stance. It is their right to elect the declaw operation out of convenience. This may be influenced by the fact that in America they have a written constitution which is often quoted whereas in the UK we don't. The constitution states in writing the right of the citizens of the USA. Maybe it means that those rights are fixed more firmly in the heads of Americans than they are in the British.

Americans are also more religious than Brits. Religion is dying in the UK. The population of the American bible belt is large. The bible encourages declawing as it preaches the dominion of humans over animals.

Although keeping cats indoors protects wildlife from feline predation, this is not the primary reason for keeping them inside. The reason is more human-centric, inward looking.

The conclusion is that there is a link between keeping cats indoors full-time and declawing but it is underpinned by a culture difference.

A cat loving former US diplomat who lives in the UK, Judd Birdsall said:

"When you go around a village in the UK you see lots of cats outside. I can't ever remember seeing a cat outside in the US. For Americans, it's a matter of freedom and convenience - the right to the freedom to make decisions in terms of how you raise your cat, and convenience, because once you remove the claws, you don't ever have to worry about you or the furniture getting scratched. By contrast, in the UK, any concerns for freedom and convenience are vastly dwarfed by concern to the welfare of the cat - it's unthinkable to declaw cats in Europe."