In The Case of the Animals versus Man, the humans argue that they are superior and masters to all animals. On the other hand, the animals argue against the humans’ dominance. Both points of views are listened to by the King of Jinn who will later make a ruling. Through constant debating, we can find some inconsistency in each side’s reasoning. During one of the human’s rebuttal, they questioned the animals spokesperson’s expertise,” if you are the learned spokesman of the beasts, why is the camel’s neck so long” (112). In this sentence the humans categorize not only the camel, but all animals as beasts, creatures that are unpleasant to the eye. The humans argue here that they are God’s best formed and most attractive creation, therefore they should be superior to the animals. In the animal’s rebuttal, the spokesman made it clear to the humans and the king that all of the animal’s parts served a purpose. All animals, along with the camel, were intentionally created that way by God. In the ending of their argument, we see a bit of inconsistency coming from the animals. “Our males are not aroused by your females beauties, or are our females drawn to the charms of your males– just as blacks don’t find the charms of whites attractive, or whites those of blacks, and just as boy-lovers have no passion for the charms of girls and wenchers have no desire for boys. So, Mr Human Being, your boasts of superior beauty are groundless”(113). I believe that the animals intended to debunk the human’s argument of being the most attractive creation however it lacked logic. Questioning mix racial and homosexual partners seemed unlogical in their argument. It is very ironic and hypocritical that the animals bash on the humans and the way they form relations. Unlike humans, animals use sex only for reproduction and survival of their species. In this argument, the animal’s voice is more antagonizing than logical which is more of the human’s style of arguing. Most of the humans reasons as to why they should be dominant, is just to demoralize the animals and make themselves sound perfect.
Angeles Hernandez
Environmental Justice in Beast Fables 
Hi Angeles,
Great argument. However, when the animals question mixed racial and homosexual partners, I think that was actually the human authors speaking. That is why it seems so illogical. Moreover, I agree that it was hypocritical of the animals to bash on the humans because of this. They are basically doing the same things the humans are doing to them. They are targetting each other’s charecteristics/identity.
Nice
This is such a great post, very well-done. Made me consider a lot, Angeles. Is the fact that both the animal and humans have contradicted themselves and why does this matter? The specific targeting is back and forth, so is either argument really as strong considering the mishaps of both sides? Or is there something beyond that idea? Things to consider. Great job!
-Jade Graham