November 18, 2007
Video of the Day: "Hey, Coo - I'm Walking Here!"
City Councilman Simcha Felder's proposed legislation to fine people $1,000 for feeding pigeons has struck a nerve. Felder and other elected officials claim that pigeons' poop is harmful to New Yorkers and, therefore, various ways to limit pigeons' eating and procreating should be explored. But some pigeon lovers are unhappy with the level of vitriol directed at the city's unofficial bird. Hence the video from Animaniacs, "Goodfeathers" (it's 10 minutes, so settle in to watch!).
Members of the New York Bird Club and Pigeon People, as well as other pigeon-supporting groups, met last week to discuss how to fight City Hall. The NY Times noted that one NY Bird Club member made the point, "A pigeon has never attacked a person. A rat has." And what about pigeons' importance in helping the U.S. Army during World War I?
When City Council Speaker Christine Quinn referred to pigeons as "flying rats," the Post reported that Urban Wildlife Coalition founder Johana Clearfield sent Quinn a letter calling her "clueless...pigeons have nothing in common with rats." And Clearfield also wrote that saying "flying rats" was an "epithet... much like the n-word." Also, the Department of Health doesn't consider pigeons a public health nuisance.
Still, many groups, like PETA, the ASPCA, and Humane Society, support birth control and/or curbs on pigeon feeding. Maybe they can ask Tracy Morgan to film PSA's as Tracy Jordan, who on 30 Rock told a pigeon, "Pigeon, you should stop eating other people's old french fries. Have some self-respect! Don't you know you can fly?"
|
Of course the difference between "flying rats" and the N-word is that with the N-word, it is used for FUCKING PEOPLE not for huge population of dirty poopy birds. Rats are also very smart animals, and can be trained to help humans, but would anyone scream if we fined people $1000 for feeding them?
If these birds would starve without people feeding them, then they are overpopulated. People are not a natural food source in the ecosystem.
Even more on this inane topic: Our friends blogged on Gothamist's previous post on this story, and the crazy pigeon people showed up and made an amazing spectacle of themselves:
http://pissyrabbits.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/276/
Quinn is a tool
One other difference between "flying rats" and the N-word is that pigeons don't call each other "flying rats".
30 Rock rules!
Wow, c00n actual knows what pigeons think. So it must take a pigeon with a small brain to comment on what pigeons with small brains talk about. So you actual sit down and have conversations with pigeons? So what do pigeons call themselves, since you talk to them and they told you they don't call themselves "flying rats", please inform us. STFU then seek intelligence.
I hear pigeons coo. Can't you?
the following text is an excerpt from the author of an upcoming book on the sociology of urban relationships and (as part of his study) human relationships with each other and with pigeons. As follows:
Councilman Felder wants to ban pigeon feeding and
appoint a “Pigeon Czar.” A Pigeon Czar? It seems,
though, as if he has channeled the collective psyche
of New York politicians. Mayor Bloomberg commented,
“I think that while … I love birds we do have a lot of
pigeons and they do tend to foul a lot of our areas
and people would be better off not feeding the
pigeons.” And councilwoman Quinn added, “I have no
love of pigeons at all. I find them to be flying
rats.” Subsequently, Quinn remarked, “I will not let
my personal pigeon position impact my professional
pigeon position.” This implies that at some later
date she will come to a purely “objective” decision
about the legislation after a careful review of the
facts. Pardon my skepticism.
Ever since the phrase “rats with wings” entered the
public lexicon—introduced, by the way, by NYC Parks
Commissioner Thomas P. Hoving in 1966 but catapulted
into pop culture by its utterance in Woody Allen’s
1981 movie “Stardust Memories”—pigeon loathing has
taken on a life of its own. No doubt, pigeons can
create problems. But before we criminalize pigeon
feeding we should understand the roots of concern.
The disease argument is simply not convincing.
Felder’s report admits that that the city’s own health
agencies do not see pigeons as a threat for
transmitting diseases to humans; what it does not cite
is the fact that many other birds such as sparrows,
starlings, and even parrots carry many of the same
diseases, and that dog feces left behind by careless
guardians can host a variety of similar pathogens.
This has not stopped those in the past from distorting
the facts to meet their political ends. For example,
in 1963 a New York City health official ascribed two
deaths from cryptococcal meningitis to exposure to
pigeons. No matter that it was not known if either
victim was in close proximity to large numbers of
pigeons, or that an Italian medical expert refuted the
claims in the Times and said “pigeons are no more
dangerous to health than any other house-hold pet:”
the health official recommended exterminating all of
the city’s pigeons and outlawing feeding. At that
time, feeding pigeons in the park was a common
pastime. Some parks even had feeding stations.
This medical discourse had a profound spatial and
legal impact on the pigeon. Feeding pigeons became
outlawed in some parks or could result in a citation
if deemed a health “nuisance” by officials, not just
in New York but also in a growing number of cities.
When institutions such as the Parks Department
officially designated pigeons as “nuisances” or
“pests” based on epidemiological claims, this
classification enabled their removal and
extermination. Pigeons became a major moneymaker for
the pest control industry after they became a
recognized pest. Such designations, as labels affixed
to these birds, reinforce that the appearance of
pigeons in human space will often be experienced with
disgust or anxiety. Because they are nonnative
species, the Audubon Society has no interest in
protecting pigeons. Their status as “rats with wings”
became naturalized, rendering them culturally
worthless.
The tail is now wagging the dog. While many of the
alleged connections between pigeons and disease have
been debunked, the legacy is inscribed in a cultural
intolerance for the presence of these birds and their
feces in spaces designated for human use. In other
words, our perception of pigeons as “rats with wings”
is acting as a stereotype. We seek out information
that reinforces our perceptions while putting on
blinders. For example, much has been made of the need
to control pigeons in case the bird flu pandemic
reaches America. Yet medical experts make clear that
pigeons are highly resistant to H5N1, and that ducks
are the animals most likely to pass a deadly strain on
to humans.
While many people enjoy feeding ducks in parks, those
who still enjoy feeding pigeons often become
stigmatized as “crazy.” Before we make them criminals,
perhaps we should critically examine some of our
commonsense assumptions. One person’s rat is another’s
dove.
The Following is an excerpt from the author of an upcoming book on the history of civilizations, public space and includes an examination of pigeons as a social element. As follows:
Councilman Felder wants to ban pigeon feeding and
appoint a “Pigeon Czar.” A Pigeon Czar? It seems,
though, as if he has channeled the collective psyche
of New York politicians. Mayor Bloomberg commented,
“I think that while … I love birds we do have a lot of
pigeons and they do tend to foul a lot of our areas
and people would be better off not feeding the
pigeons.” And councilwoman Quinn added, “I have no
love of pigeons at all. I find them to be flying
rats.” Subsequently, Quinn remarked, “I will not let
my personal pigeon position impact my professional
pigeon position.” This implies that at some later
date she will come to a purely “objective” decision
about the legislation after a careful review of the
facts. Pardon my skepticism.
Ever since the phrase “rats with wings” entered the
public lexicon—introduced, by the way, by NYC Parks
Commissioner Thomas P. Hoving in 1966 but catapulted
into pop culture by its utterance in Woody Allen’s
1981 movie “Stardust Memories”—pigeon loathing has
taken on a life of its own. No doubt, pigeons can
create problems. But before we criminalize pigeon
feeding we should understand the roots of concern.
The disease argument is simply not convincing.
Felder’s report admits that that the city’s own health
agencies do not see pigeons as a threat for
transmitting diseases to humans; what it does not cite
is the fact that many other birds such as sparrows,
starlings, and even parrots carry many of the same
diseases, and that dog feces left behind by careless
guardians can host a variety of similar pathogens.
This has not stopped those in the past from distorting
the facts to meet their political ends. For example,
in 1963 a New York City health official ascribed two
deaths from cryptococcal meningitis to exposure to
pigeons. No matter that it was not known if either
victim was in close proximity to large numbers of
pigeons, or that an Italian medical expert refuted the
claims in the Times and said “pigeons are no more
dangerous to health than any other house-hold pet:”
the health official recommended exterminating all of
the city’s pigeons and outlawing feeding. At that
time, feeding pigeons in the park was a common
pastime. Some parks even had feeding stations.
This medical discourse had a profound spatial and
legal impact on the pigeon. Feeding pigeons became
outlawed in some parks or could result in a citation
if deemed a health “nuisance” by officials, not just
in New York but also in a growing number of cities.
When institutions such as the Parks Department
officially designated pigeons as “nuisances” or
“pests” based on epidemiological claims, this
classification enabled their removal and
extermination. Pigeons became a major moneymaker for
the pest control industry after they became a
recognized pest. Such designations, as labels affixed
to these birds, reinforce that the appearance of
pigeons in human space will often be experienced with
disgust or anxiety. Because they are nonnative
species, the Audubon Society has no interest in
protecting pigeons. Their status as “rats with wings”
became naturalized, rendering them culturally
worthless.
The tail is now wagging the dog. While many of the
alleged connections between pigeons and disease have
been debunked, the legacy is inscribed in a cultural
intolerance for the presence of these birds and their
feces in spaces designated for human use. In other
words, our perception of pigeons as “rats with wings”
is acting as a stereotype. We seek out information
that reinforces our perceptions while putting on
blinders. For example, much has been made of the need
to control pigeons in case the bird flu pandemic
reaches America. Yet medical experts make clear that
pigeons are highly resistant to H5N1, and that ducks
are the animals most likely to pass a deadly strain on
to humans.
While many people enjoy feeding ducks in parks, those
who still enjoy feeding pigeons often become
stigmatized as “crazy.” Before we make them criminals,
perhaps we should critically examine some of our
commonsense assumptions. One person’s rat is another’s
dove.