| Revision as of 17:20, 10 December 2007 editLink409 (talk | contribs)4 editsm →Background← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:20, 10 December 2007 edit undoLink409 (talk | contribs)4 edits ←Replaced page with 'lol L2 play noobs'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| lol L2 play noobs | |||
| ] in 1906, then dismantled and presumed destroyed in 1910 after the Brown Dog riots. A new statue of the dog was erected in ] in 1985.]] | |||
| The '''Brown Dog affair''' was a political controversy about ] that raged in ] from 1903 until 1910.<ref name=Grazter225/> It involved the infiltration of ] medical lectures by Swedish women activists, pitched battles between medical students and the police, police protection for the statue of a dog, a ] trial at the ], and the establishment of a ] to investigate the use of animals in experiments. The affair became a ] that reportedly divided the country.<ref name=Ryder136>]. ''Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism''. Berg Publishers, 2000, p. 136.</ref><ref name=Mason>Mason, Peter. . Two Sevens Publishing, 1997.</ref> | |||
| The controversy was triggered by allegations that ] of the Department of Physiology at ], had performed illegal dissection in February 1903 on a brown ] dog — adequately anaesthetized, according to Bayliss and his team,<ref name=Grazter226/> conscious and struggling, according to the Swedish activists<ref name=Mann40/> — before an audience of medical students.<ref name=IndependentonSunday>, ''The Independent on Sunday'', ] ], retrieved ] ].</ref> The procedure was condemned as cruel and unlawful by the ]. Bayliss, whose research on dogs led to the discovery of ]s, was outraged by the assault on his reputation. He sued for libel and won.<ref name=Mann40>]. ''From Dawn 'Til Dusk''. Puppy Pincher Press, 2007, p.40.</ref> | |||
| Anti-vivisectionists commissioned a bronze statue of the dog as a memorial, unveiled in ] in 1906, but medical students were angered by its provocative ] — "Men and women of England, how long shall these things be?" — leading to frequent vandalism of the memorial and the need for a 24-hour police guard against the so-called "anti-doggers". On ] ], 1,000 anti-doggers marched through central London, clashing with ]s, trade unionists, and 400 police officers in ], one of a series of battles that became known as the '''Brown Dog riots'''.<ref name=IndependentonSunday/><ref name=Priddey>Priddey, Helen. , ''''The Bugle'' 2003, reproduced by the Wolverhampton University Local History Society, retrieved ] ].</ref> | |||
| Tired of the controversy, Battersea Council removed the statue in 1910 under cover of darkness, after which it was allegedly destroyed by the council's blacksmith, despite a 20,000-strong petition in its favour.<ref name=Kean153>Kean, Hilda. ''Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800'', p. 153.</ref> A new statue of the brown dog was commissioned by anti-vivisection groups over 70 years later, and was erected in ] in 1985.<ref name=Sutch/> | |||
| LOL L2 Play | |||
| ==Vivisection of the brown dog== | |||
| ], the future ], killed the dog when the dissection was over.]] | |||
| The brown dog was a mongrel of the terrier type, probably a former stray dog or pet,<ref name=KeanSociety>Kean, Hilda. "An Exploration of the Sculptures of Greyfriars Bobby, Edinburgh, Scotland, and the Brown Dog, Battersea, South London, England", ''Society and Animals'', Volume 1, Number 4, December 2003, pp. 353–373.</ref> weighed 14 lbs, and had short, rough hair.<ref name=Mason14>Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p.14. Mason writes that the dog weighed 14 lbs, and Walter Gratzer confirms that Ernest Starling called the dog "small", but the two Swedish witnesses referred to him as "large", according to Gratzer. (Gratzer, Walter. ''Eurekas and Euphorias: The Oxford Book of Scientific Anecdotes''. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 226.)</ref> He was first used in a dissection in December 1902 by Starling, who had cut open the dog's abdomen and ] the ].<ref name=Grazter226/> The dog lived in a cage for the next two months, reportedly upsetting people with his howling.<ref name=NAVS>, ], retrieved ] ].</ref> | |||
| He was brought back to the lecture theatre for another demonstration on ], ]. During this second procedure, he was stretched on his back on an operating board, with his legs tied to the board, his head clamped into position, and his mouth muzzled to keep him quiet.<ref name=Mann41>]. ''From Dawn 'Til Dusk''. Puppy Pincher Press, 2007, p.41.</ref> | |||
| In front of the audience, Starling cut the dog open again to inspect the results of the previous surgery, after which he clamped the wound, then handed the dog over to Bayliss, who wanted to look at the ]s. Bayliss cut a new opening in the dog's neck to expose the glands.<ref name=Grazter225>Gratzer, Walter. ''Eurekas and Euphorias: The Oxford Book of Scientific Anecdotes''. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 225.</ref> The dog was then stimulated with electricity<ref name=NAVS/> to demonstrate that salivary pressure was independent of blood pressure.<ref name=Grazter225/> Bayliss was unable to show this, and gave up trying after half an hour. The dog was handed over to a student, ], a future ], who removed the dog's pancreas, then killed him with a knife.<ref name=Grazter226/> | |||
| Walter Gratzer writes that the dog was anaesthetized during the procedure with a ] injection, then with a mixture of ], ], and ], which was delivered to a tube in the dog's ] via a pipe hidden behind the bench the men were working on. He argues that, without anaesthesia, it would have been impossible for the researchers to perform the surgery.<ref name=Grazter226/> | |||
| ===Infiltration by Swedish activists=== | |||
| Unknown to Starling and Bayliss, their lectures had been infiltrated by two Swedish women activists. ], a 24-year-old Swedish countess, and Leisa K. Schartau had visited the ] in ] in 1900 and were appalled by the use of animals there.<ref name=Ryder135/> On their return to Sweden, they made contact with the Swedish Animal Protection League, and in December 1900 founded the Anti-Vivisection Society of Sweden. In 1902, they enrolled as students at the ] — a vivisection-free college which had visiting arrangements with other London colleges — partly to gain medical training, and partly as undercover anti-vivisectionists.<ref name="Mason08">Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p.8</ref> | |||
| The women attended lectures at ] and University College,<ref name=Ryder135>] "Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism'', p. 135.</ref> keeping a meticulous diary, which they published in 1903 as ''Eye-Witnesses'', changing the title for the second edition to ''The Shambles of Science: Extracts from the Diary of Two Students of Physiology''.<ref name=Preece352>Preece, Rod. ''Awe for the Tiger, Love for the Lamb: A Chronicle of Sensibility to Animals'', p. 352.</ref> The book was reportedly a bombshell, receiving 200 reviews in four months.<ref name=Ryder135/> | |||
| ] in 1963 with ]]] | |||
| Of the brown dog, the women wrote that he appeared conscious, and that there was no smell of anaesthesia: | |||
| {{Quotation|A large dog, stretched on its back on an operation board, is carried into the lecture-room by the demonstrator and the laboratory attendant. Its legs are fixed to the board, its head is firmly held in the usual manner, and it is tightly muzzled. There is a large incision on the side of the neck, exposing the gland. The animal exhibits all the signs of intense suffering; in his struggles, he again and again lifts his body from the board, and makes powerful attempts to get free. The lecturer, attired in the blood-stained surplice of the priest of vivisection, has tucked up his sleeves and is now comfortably smoking a pipe, whilst with hands coloured crimson he arranges the electrical circuit for the stimulation that will follow. Now and then, he makes a funny remark, which is appreciated by those around him.<ref name=Mann40>Mann, Keith. ''From Dawn 'Til Dusk''. Puppy Pincher Press, 2007, p.40.</ref>}} | |||
| Other students present during the surgery reported that the dog had not struggled, but had merely twitched.<ref name=Grazter226/> | |||
| ===Involvement of the National Anti-Vivisection Society=== | |||
| Lind-af-Hageby and Schartau decided to show their diary to the barrister ], secretary of the ] (NAVS), and the son of a former ]. | |||
| Coleridge's attention was drawn to the description of the brown dog experiments, because the Cruelty to Animals Act forbade the use of an animal in more than one experiment. Yet it appeared that the brown dog had been used by Ernest Starling to perform surgery on the pancreas, then used again by Starling when he opened the dog to inspect the results of the previous surgery, and for a third time by Bayliss to study the salivary glands.<ref name=Grazter225/> Furthermore, the dog had not been properly anaesthetized, according to the women, and had been killed by Henry Dale, at the time an unlicensed research student. The women also alleged that the students had laughed during the procedure: "there were jokes and laughter everywhere" in the lecture hall while the brown dog was being dissected, according to Lind-af-Hageby, a claim she published in her book under the chapter title "Fun".<ref name=Kean142>Kean, Hilda. ''Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800'', p. 142.</ref> These were all regarded as '']'' violations of the Act.<ref name=KeanSociety/> | |||
| ] gave an angry speech about the allegations, possibly intending to provoke a suit for libel.]] | |||
| Peter Mason writes that Coleridge decided there was no point in relying on a prosecution under the Act, which he regarded as deliberately obstructive. Instead, he gave an angry speech about the allegations to the annual meeting of the National Anti-Vivisection Society at ] in May 1903, probably with a view to inciting a suit for libel.<ref name="Mason10-11">Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p. 10–11.</ref><ref name=KeanSociety/> The speech included a statement from Lind-af-Hageby: "The dog struggled forcibly during the whole experiment and seemed to suffer extremely during the stimulation. No anaesthetic had been administered in my presence, and the lecturer said nothing about any attempts to anaesthetize the animal having previously been made."<ref name=AMG>''Australasian Medical Gazette'', Vol. XXIII, January-December 1904, p. 132.</ref> Coleridge accused the scientists of having tortured the animal. "If this is not torture, let Mr. Bayliss and his friends ... tell us in Heaven's name what torture is."<ref name=AMG/> | |||
| Mason writes that a verbatim report of the speech was published the next day by the radical '']'' — founded by ] — and over the next three days by other national and regional papers. Questions were raised in the House of Commons, particularly by ], a ] MP and sponsor of a vivisection bill aimed at ending demonstrations of the kind conducted by Starling and Bayliss. On ] ], Coleridge challenged Bayliss in a letter to the ''Daily News'': "As soon as Dr. Bayliss likes to test the ''bona fides'' and accuracy of my public declaration ... he shall be confronted from the witness box by eyewitnesses I rely upon."<ref name="Mason12">Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p.12.</ref> | |||
| Bayliss demanded a public apology, and when it failed to materialize, he issued a writ for libel. Starling decided not to sue. Even ], a medical journal that was no supporter of Coleridge, wrote that "it may be contended that Professor Starling ... committed a technical infringement of the Act."<ref name="Mason14">Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p.14.</ref> | |||
| ===Bayliss v. Coleridge=== | |||
| ] (standing at the front), ], and ].]] | |||
| The trial began on ] ] at the ] on ], and took place over four days, closing on ] ]. The ''British Medical Journal'' called it "a test case of the utmost gravity".<ref name="Mason14"/> The public gallery was described as packed and rowdy,<ref name=Grazter225/> with no spare seats or standing room, and queues 30 yards long forming outside the courthouse.<ref name="Mason13">Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p.13.</ref> | |||
| Starling was the first witness. He admitted that he had broken the law by using the dog twice, but said in his defence that he had done so to avoid sacrificing two dogs.<ref name=Grazter226/> The court accepted Bayliss's statement that the brown dog had been anaesthetized with one-and-a-half grains of ] and six ounces of alcohol, ], and ]. He further stated that the dog had been suffering from ], a disease involving involuntary spasm, meaning that any movement the women had witnessed was not purposive. In addition, Bayliss testified that a ] had been performed, and that it was therefore impossible for the women to have heard the dog crying and whining, as they had claimed. | |||
| ] testified that the dog had been anaesthetized. He said that any movement had been the result of ], and was not purposive.]] | |||
| Coleridge's defence called on the two Swedish women as witnesses. They testified that they were the first students to arrive at the lecture hall, and that they saw the dog being brought in. They were then left alone with the dog for about two minutes, and examined him themselves. They observed scars from the previous operations, and saw an incision in the neck where two tubes had been placed. They did not smell any anaesthetic. The dog was making what they regarded as voluntary movements, which suggested to them that he was conscious.<ref name=NAVS/> | |||
| ] | |||
| Coleridge was criticized for having accepted this "unsubstantiated calumny", as the bacteriologist Harold Ernst later called it, without seeking corroboration, though he knew that speaking about it publicly could lead to prosecution. Coleridge responded that he hadn't sought verification because he knew the claims would be denied, and he testified that he continued to regard the women's statement as true.<ref name=Ernst>Ernst, Harold C. ''Journal of Social Science'', Proceedings of the American Association, XLII, September 1904, p. 103.</ref> | |||
| The jury found that Bayliss had been ], and on ] ] he was awarded £2,000<ref name=NYTNOv19>, ''The New York Times'', ] ].</ref> with £3,000 costs, worth around £250,000 in 2004, according to Gratzer. There are conflicting views as to how popular a decision this was. The '']'' wrote in 1904 that the ruling was greeted by applause in the court,<ref name=Edinburgh>''The Edinburgh Medical Journal, XV, 1904. p. 6.</ref> and ] fell into a depression because of the animus of the public. While '']'' declared itself satisfied with the verdict, the ''Daily News'' called it a miscarriage of justice,<ref name=NAVS/> and launched a fund to cover Coleridge's expenses, raising £5,735 within four months. Bayliss donated his damages to UCL for use in research; Gratzer writes that the fund is probably still being used today to buy animals for research.<ref name=Grazter226>Gratzer, Walter. ''Eurekas and Euphorias: The Oxford Book of Scientific Anecdotes''. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 226.</ref> | |||
| On ] ], Ernest Bell of ], publisher and printer of ''The Shambles of Science'', apologized to Bayliss "for having printed and published the book in question", and pledged to withdraw it from circulation and hand over all remaining copies to Bayliss's solicitors.<ref name=Lee>Lee, Frederic S. of Columbia University, , Letter to the Editor, ''The New York Times'', ] ], retrieved ] ].</ref> The Animal Defense and Anti-vivisection Society, founded by Lind-af-Hageby in 1903,<ref name=ADT>, retrieved ] ].</ref> republished the book, printing a fifth edition by 1913.<ref name=Kalechofsky/> The chapter "Fun", which had caused such offence, was replaced with one called "The Vivisections of the Brown Dog," describing the experiment and the trial.<ref>, NAVS, retrieved ] ].</ref><ref>Lansbury, Coral. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.<!--will add page number--></ref> | |||
| ==Brown Dog memorial built== | |||
| ]]] | |||
| After the trial, Lind-af-Hageby was approached by Anna Louisa Woodward, founder of the World League Against Vivisection, who suggested the idea of a public memorial.<ref name=Kalechofsky>]. . Micah Publications, 1991.</ref> Woodward raised a subscription, and commissioned from sculptor Joseph Whitehead a bronze statue of the dog on top of a granite memorial stone — 7 ft 6 ins tall — containing a drinking fountain for human beings, and a lower trough for dogs and horses.<ref name="Mason23">Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p.23</ref> | |||
| The group turned to the borough of Battersea for a location for the memorial. The area was known as a hotbed of radicalism — proletarian, socialist, belching smoke, and full of slums — and was closely associated with the anti-vivisection movement. Battersea General Hospital refused to perform vivisection, or to employ doctors who engaged in it, and was known locally as the "Antiviv" or the "Old Anti."<ref name=Grazter227>Gratzer, Walter. ''Eurekas and Euphorias: The Oxford Book of Scientific Anecdotes''. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 227.</ref> The ] was well-known in London; its chairman, the Duke of Portland, rejected a request in 1907 that its lost dogs be sold to vivisectors as "not only horrible, but absurd."<ref name=Lansbury7>Lansbury, Coral. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, p. 7.</ref> | |||
| Battersea council agreed to provide a space for the statue on its newly completed Latchmere Estate, a housing estate for the working class offering detached homes at seven and sixpence a week.<ref name=Lansbury8>Lansbury, Coral. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, p. 8.</ref> The statue was unveiled on ] ] in front of a large crowd — speakers included ] and ]<ref name=Lansbury14>Lansbury, Coral. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, p. 14.</ref> — bearing an inscription hailed by '']'' as "hysterical language customary of anti-vivisectionists", and "a slander on the whole medical profession":<ref name=NYTMarch13>, ''The New York Times'', ] ], retrieved ] ].</ref> | |||
| {{Quotation|In Memory of the Brown Terrier Dog done to Death in the Laboratories of University College in February 1903, after having endured Vivisection extending over more than two months and having been handed from one Vivisector to another till Death came to his Release. Also in Memory of the 232 dogs vivisected at the same place during the year 1902. Men and Women of England, how long shall these things be?<ref name=Phelps147>Phelps, Norm. ''The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to Peta'', p. 147.</ref>}} | |||
| ===Riots=== | |||
| Medical students at London's teaching hospitals were enraged by the plaque. The first year of the statue's existence was a quiet one, while University College explored whether they could take legal action over it, but from November 1907 onwards, the students turned Battersea into the scene of almost nightly riots. | |||
| The first action was on ] ], when a group of University College students, led by undergraduate William Howard Lister, crossed the Thames from the north over to Battersea with a crowbar and a sledgehammer, and tried to attack the statue.<ref name="mason41-47">Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, pp. 41–47.</ref> Ten of them were arrested. The next day, others protested in ] against the fines levied on the ten, and the day after that saw a demonstration of hundreds of students, who marched holding ] of the brown dog on sticks.<ref name=KeanSociety/> ''The Times'' reported that they marched down the Strand to burn an effigy of a magistrate, and when it failed to ignite they threw it in ].<ref name=Tansey>Tansey, E.M. {{PDFlink|}}, ''Advances in Physiology Education'', Volume 19: Number 1, June 1998, retrieved November 21, 2007.</ref> | |||
| {{rquote|right|'''''As we go walking after dark,<br>We turn our steps to Latchmere Park,<br>And there we see, to our surprise,<br>A little brown dog that stands and lies.<br><br>Ha, ha, ha! Hee, hee, hee!<br>Little brown dog how we hate thee.'''''<br><br>— One of the songs the rioters sang as they marched down ] on ], ], this one to the tune of '']''.<ref>Ford, Edward K. ''The Brown Dog and his Memorial''. London: Miss Lind-af-Hageby's Anti-Vivisection Council, 1908, p. 3, cited in Lansbury, Coral. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, p. 179.</ref>}} | |||
| The rioting reached its height on Tuesday, ] ], when 100 medical students again tried to pull the memorial down. The previous protests had been spontaneous, but this one was organized to coincide with the annual ] ] match at ], ], the protesters hoping that some of the thousands of Oxbridge students due to attend would swell their numbers. Peter Mason writes that street vendors were even selling handkerchiefs with the date of the protest printed on them, and the words "Brown dog's inscription is a lie, and the statuette an insult to the London University."<ref name=Mason51>Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p. 51.</ref> | |||
| Toward late afternoon, one group of protesters headed for Battersea, intending to uproot the statue and throw it in the Thames. Driven out of the Latchmere Estate by male workers, they proceeded down Battersea Park Road, where they tried unsuccessfully to attack the anti-vivisection hospital. The workers again forced the students back, the ''Daily Chronicle'' reporting that, when one student fell from the top of a tram and was injured, the workers shouted: "That's the brown dog's revenge!"<ref>''Daily Chronicle'', November 15, 1907, cited in Lansbury, Coral. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, p. 17.</ref> | |||
| A second group headed for central London, waving more effigies of the brown dog, joined by a police escort and, briefly, a ] on the ].<ref name=Mason51>Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p. 51.</ref> As the marchers reached Trafalgar Square, they were 1,000 strong, facing 400 police officers, some of them ].<ref>There are conflicting reports about the date that saw the main Trafalgar Square rioting. The ''Independent on Sunday'' says that 1,000 medical students marched down the Strand on ] ], clashing with 400 police officers in Trafalgar Square. (, ''The Independent on Sunday'', October 26, 2003) Professor ] writes that it was the evening of December 10 that 100 medical students tried to pull the statue down in Battersea, and that the march along the Strand and the Trafalgar Square rioting took place two days later. (Ryder, Richard D. ''Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism''. Berg Publishers, 2000, p. 136)</ref> The students gathered around ], the ringleaders climbing on top of it to make speeches. As students fought with police on the ground, mounted police charged the crowd, scattering them into smaller groups and arresting the stragglers, including one Cambridge undergraduate, Alexander Bowley, who was arrested for "barking like a dog".<ref name=Mason56>Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p. 56.</ref> | |||
| The fighting in central London continued for hours before the police gained control of the crowd. One local doctor told the ''South Western Star'' that the students' failure to hold back the police for longer was a sign of the "utter degeneration" of junior doctors and the Anglo-Saxon race.<ref name=Mason56>Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p. 56.</ref> | |||
| Over the following days and weeks, more rioting broke out, with medical and veterinary students uniting. Women's suffrage meetings were routinely invaded by medical students barking like dogs, and shouting "Down with the Brown Dog!", though the students knew not all suffragettes were anti-vivisectionists.<ref name=Lansbury17>Lansbury, Coral. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, p. 17.</ref> A women's ] meeting at the ] baths, organized by ], was violently invaded on December 5. Louise Lind-af-Hageby arranged a meeting of anti-vivisectionists at Acton Central Hall on December 16, and though the meeting was protected by a large guard of Battersea workers, over 100 students managed to smuggle themselves in, and the event deteriorated into an exchange of chairs, fists, and smoke bombs.<ref name=Lansbury18>Lansbury, Coral. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, p. 18.</ref> | |||
| Questions were asked in the House of Commons about the cost of policing the statue. London's police commissioner approached ] — the first person of African descent to be elected to public office in the UK and later elected to be mayor of Battersea — to ask whether Battersea council would either contribute to the costs, which had reached £700 a year, or take the statue down.<ref name=KeanSociety/> Archer refused to do either.<ref>, Animal Aid, retrieved ] ].</ref> | |||
| ====Strange relationships==== | |||
| Susan McHugh of the ] writes that the dog's mongrelly status reflected the extraordinary political coalition that rallied to the statue's defence. The riots saw ], ], ], ], and ]s descend on Battersea to fight the medical students, even though the suffragettes, identified with the ], were not a group toward whom organized male workers felt any warmth — working-class men did not want to enfranchise the cheap labour of women. But the "Brown Dog Done to Death in the Laboratories of University College" by the male scientific establishment united them.<ref name=McHugh138>McHugh, Susan. ''Dog''. Reaktion, 2004, p. 138.</ref> | |||
| ] writes that the causes of feminism and women's suffrage became closely linked with the anti-vivisection movement. Three of the four vice-presidents of the Battersea General Hospital that refused to allow vivisection were women.<ref name=Lansbury19>Lansbury, Coral. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, p. 19.</ref> Lansbury argues that the Brown Dog affair became a matter of opposing symbols, the iconography of vivisection striking a chord with women. The vivisected dog muzzled and strapped to the operating board blurred into images of suffragettes on ] restrained and force-fed in ]; women strapped into the gynaecologist's chair by an all-powerful male medical establishment, forced to have their ovaries and uteruses removed as a cure for "]," or strapped down for childbirth.<ref name=Lansbury24>Lansbury, Coral. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, pp. x and 24.</ref> ] writes that the dog represented the vulnerability of women; the medical students the ] of science.<ref name=Ryder136/> | |||
| Both sides saw themselves as heirs to the future. Hilda Kean of ] writes that the Swedish protagonists were young and female, anti-establishment and progressive, while the accused scientists, older and male, were viewed as remnants of a previous age.<ref name=Kean143>Kean, Hilda. ''Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800'', pp. 142–143.</ref> It was the Swedish women's hard-won access to higher education that had made the case possible in the first place, creating a new form of political agitation, a "new form of witnessing," according to Susan Hamilton of the University of Alberta.<ref>Hamilton, Susan. ''Animal Welfare & Anti-vivisection 1870-1910: Nineteenth Century Woman's Mission'', p. xiv.</ref> Against this, Lansbury reports that the students saw the women and the trade unionists as representative of superstition and sentimentality, anti-science, anti-progress — "women of both sexes" defending a brutal, insanitary past — while the students and their teachers were the "New Priesthood."<ref name=Lansburyx>Lansbury, Coral. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, pp. x, 4, 12, 152-169.</ref> | |||
| ==="Exit the 'Brown Dog'"=== | |||
| ]'', ] ], shows the empty spot where the Brown Dog had stood.]] | |||
| Battersea Council grew tired of the controversy. A new ] council was elected in November 1909, amid talk of removing the statue. There were protests in support of it, and the 500-strong Brown Dog memorial defence committee was established. Twenty thousand people signed a petition, and 1,500 attended a rally in February 1910 addressed by ], the Irish suffragette and ] activist; Liberal MP ]; and Louise Lind-af-Hageby.<ref name=Kean153/> There were demonstrations in central London, and speeches in ], with supporters wearing masks of dogs.<ref name=KeanSociety/> | |||
| The protests were to no avail. The statue was quietly removed before dawn on ] ] by four Council workmen accompanied by 120 police officers.<ref>''Daily Graphic'', ] ], cited in Kean, Hilda. "An Exploration of the Sculptures of Greyfriars Bobby, Edinburgh, Scotland, and the Brown Dog, Battersea, South London, England", ''Society and Animals'', Volume 1, Number 4, December 2003, pp. 353–373.</ref><ref name=Lansbury21>Lansbury, Coral. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, p.21.</ref> It was first hidden in a bicycle shed, then believed to have been destroyed by a council ], who reportedly smashed it, then melted it down.<ref name=Lansbury21/><ref name=Sutch>Sutch, Gillian. , ''The Review'', Issue 52, Summer 2002, reproduced by Friends of Battersea Park, retrieved ] ].</ref> Ten days later, 3,000 anti-vivisectionists gathered in Trafalgar Square to demand the return of the statue, but it was clear Battersea Council had turned its back on the affair. | |||
| Peter Mason writes that all that is left of the old Brown Dog is a small hump on the pavement at the centre of Latchmere Recreation Ground, near the Latchmere Pub. The sign on a nearby fence reads "No Dogs".<ref name=Mason/> | |||
| ===Memorial restored=== | |||
| , Public Monument and Sculpture Association's National Recording Project, retrieved November 26, 2007.</ref></small>]] | |||
| ''The New York Times'' wrote in March 1910 that "it is not considered at all probable that the effigy will ever again be exhibited in a public place".<ref name=NYTMarch13/> | |||
| Over 75 years later, a new memorial to the brown dog was erected just behind the Pump House in ], commissioned by the National Anti-Vivisection Society and the ], and unveiled by actress ] on ] ].<ref name=NRP>, Public Monument and Sculpture Association's National Recording Project, retrieved ] ].</ref> The new statue, by sculptor Nicola Hicks, is mounted on top of a five-foot high ] ], the dog based on Hicks's own terrier and described by Mason as "a coquettish contrast to its down-to-earth predecessor."<ref name="Mason107">Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p. 107.</ref> It repeats the original inscription, and adds: | |||
| {{Quotation|This monument replaces the original memorial of the brown dog erected by public subscription in Latchmere Recreation Ground, Battersea in 1906. The sufferings of the brown dog at the hands of the vivisectors generated much protest and mass demonstrations. It represented the revulsion of the people of London to vivisection and animal experimentation. This new monument is dedicated to the continuing struggle to end these practices. After much controversy the former monument was removed in the early hours of 10 March 1910. This was the result of a decision taken by the then Battersea Metropolitan Borough Council, the previous council having supported the erection of the memorial. Animal experimentation is one of the greatest moral issues of our time and should have no place in a civilized society. In 1903, 19,084 animals suffered and died in British laboratories. During 1984, 3,497,355 animals were burned, blinded, irradiated, poisoned and subjected to countless other horrifyingly cruel experiments in Great Britain.<ref name="Mason106">Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p.106</ref>}} | |||
| Echoing the fate of the previous memorial, the statue was moved into storage in 1992 by Battersea Park's owners, the Conservative ], as part of a park renovation scheme, according to the Council. Anti-vivisectionists, suspicious of the Council's explanation, campaigned for its return. It was reinstated in the park's Woodland Walk in 1994, near the Old English Garden, a more secluded location than before.<ref name="Mason110-111">Mason, Peter. ''The Brown Dog Affair''. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, pp. 110–111.</ref> | |||
| Hilda Kean has criticized the new statue. The old Brown Dog was upright and defiant, she writes, not begging for mercy, which made it a radical political statement. The new Brown Dog is a pet, the creator's own terrier, sited in the Old English Garden as "heritage". Quoting David Lowenthal, professor emeritus at UCL, Kean writes that "what heritage does not highlight, it hides." She writes that the new statue has been separated from its anti-vivisection message and from popular images of animal rights activism — the ]s of activists and the ] of rabbits. The new Brown Dog is too safe, she argues. Unlike its controversial ancestor, it makes no one uncomfortable.<ref name=KeanSociety/> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| *'']'' | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *'']'' | |||
| *] | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| {{reflist|2}} | |||
| ==References== | |||
| <div class="references-2column"> | |||
| *] & ]. , ''The Journal of Physiology'', 1902, 12;28(5):325–53. PMID 16992627 | |||
| *] ''''. London: Longmans, 1924. | |||
| *Biscoe, Tim. , ''Physiology News'', No. 65, Winter 2006, p. 40. | |||
| *Croce, Pietro. ''Vivisection or Science: An investigation into testing drugs and safeguarding health''. Zed Books, 1999. ISBN 185649733X | |||
| *Ernst, Harold C. ''Journal of Social Science'', Proceedings of the American Association, XLII, September 1904. | |||
| *Ford, Edward K. ''The Brown Dog and his Memorial''. London: Miss Lind-af-Hageby's Anti-Vivisection Council, 1908. A pamphlet describing the statue and listing some of the songs it inspired. | |||
| *Gratzer, Walter. ''Eurekas and Euphorias: The Oxford Book of Scientific Anecdotes''. Oxford University Press, 2004. ISBN 0192804030 | |||
| *Hamilton, Susan. ''Animal Welfare & Anti-vivisection 1870-1910: Nineteenth Century Woman's Mission''. ISBN 0415321417 | |||
| *Henderson, John. , ''Journal of Endocrinology'', (2005) 184, 5–10. PMID 15642778 | |||
| *]. , ''The Daily Telegraph'', November 12, 2003. | |||
| *Kean, Hilda. , ''Society and Animals'', Volume 1, Number 4, December 2003, pp. 353–373. | |||
| *Kean, Hilda. ''Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800''. Reaktion Books, 1998. ISBN 1861890141 | |||
| *Lee, Frederic S. of Columbia University, , Letter to the Editor, ''The New York Times'', February 3, 1909. | |||
| *] & Schartau, Leisa K. ''The Shambles of Science: Extracts from the Diary of Two Students of Physiology'', 1903. First published as ''Eye-Witnesses'', 1903. ISBN 1152413334 | |||
| *]. . Micah Publications, 1991. | |||
| *]. ''The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England''. 1985. ISBN 0299102505 | |||
| *Mason, Peter. . Two Sevens Publishing, 1997. ISBN 0952985403 | |||
| *]. ''From Dawn 'Til Dusk''. Puppy Pincher Press, 2007. ISBN 0955585007 | |||
| *McHugh, Susan. ''Dog''. Reaktion Books, 2004. ISBN 1861892039 | |||
| *Phelps, Norm. ''The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to Peta''. Lantern, 2007. ISBN 1590561066 | |||
| *Preece, Rod. ''Awe for the Tiger, Love for the Lamb: A Chronicle of Sensibility to Animals''. Routledge, 2002. ISBN 0415943639 | |||
| *] ''Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism''. Berg Publishers, 2000. ISBN 1859733301 | |||
| *Priddey, Helen. , ''''The Bugle'' 2003, reproduced by the Wolverhampton University Local History Society. | |||
| *Sutch, Gillian. , ''The Review'', Issue 52, Summer 2002, reproduced by Friends of Battersea Park. | |||
| *Tansey, E.M. {{PDFlink|}}, ''Advances in Physiology Education'', Volume 19: Number 1, June 1998. | |||
| *"Exit the 'Brown Dog'", ''Daily Graphic'', March 11, 1910. | |||
| *, ''The New York Times'', March 13, 1910. | |||
| *, Animal Aid. | |||
| *''The Edinburgh Medical Journal, XV, 1904, p. 6. | |||
| *''Australasian Medical Gazette'', Vol. XXIII, January-December 1904, p. 132. | |||
| *, National Anti-Vivisection Society. | |||
| *, ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'', 2007. | |||
| *, ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'', 2007. | |||
| *"Vivisection", ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'', 2006. | |||
| *, National Anti-Vivisection Society. | |||
| *, ''The Independent on Sunday'', October 26, 2003. | |||
| *, ''The Daily Telegraph, November 2003. | |||
| </div> | |||
| ==Further reading and external links== | |||
| <div class="references-2column"> | |||
| *, on ]. | |||
| *Bayliss, Leonard. "The 'Brown Dog' Affair' in ''Potential'', the UCL Physiology magazine, Spring 1957, No. 2, pp. 11–22. Leonard Bayliss was the son of William Bayliss. | |||
| *Coult, Tony. '''', a radio play based on Peter Mason's book, ''The Brown Dog Affair'', featuring ], Louisa Woodward, and ]. Directed by Turan Ali. First broadcast in 1998. | |||
| *Galloway, John. in '']'', 394, 635–636, August 13, 1998. | |||
| *Greek, C. Ray & Swingle Greek, Jean. ''Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals'', Continuum, 2002. ISBN 0826412262 | |||
| *Harte, Negley, and North, John. ''The World of UCL, 1828-1990'', Routledge, an imprint of Taylor & Francis Books Ltd, London, 1991. The 1991 revised edition has an image of the restaged experiment on p. 127. | |||
| *Kean, Hilda. "The 'Smooth Cool Men of Science': The Feminist and Socialist Response to Vivisection", ''History Workshop Journal'', 1995; 40: 16–38. | |||
| *Liddick, Donald R. & Liddick, Donald R. Jnr. ''Eco-terrorism: Radical Environmental And Animal Liberation Movements''. Praegar Publishers, 2006. ISBN 0275985350 | |||
| *] (ed.). ''The Anti-Vivisection Review. The Journal of Constructive Anti-Vivisection'', journal founded by Louise Lind-af-Hageby. | |||
| </div> | |||
| {{featured article}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 17:20, 10 December 2007
lol L2 play noobs