Fur Coat

Title

Fur Coat

Subject

Historically, fur coats symbolized wealth and social status. Today, many interpret them as symbols of animal cruelty. The animal rights movement had an important role in this change. It supported the protection of all animals and criticized using animals for fashion. In cities like Omaha, laws changed to restrict the fur industry. New regulations controlled hunting and improved the treatment of animals. Fur clothing lost popularity as more people considered animal safety and welfare. Our fur coat symbolizes this important transition. It shows how changes in people’s beliefs influence the culture of the Anthropocene.

Description

The purpose of our project is to investigate the historical background and significance of the fur coat in relation to the Anthropocene. Our fur coat, most likely from a bear, is housed in The Durham Museum, and is dark brown and lined with leather. (Figure I) Fur coats like this were popular in the mid-1900s. They served as a symbol of social class and an indicator of wealth. Today, they retain these associations, but they have also come to represent environmental exploitation. This object symbolizes this important shift in values. It provides a glimpse into the way the commodities and fashion take on environmental meaning. The fur coat is a historical marker of the development of the animal rights movement and shifting valuation of nature in the Anthropocene.

The animal rights movement is a cultural phenomenon that advocates for the respect and recognition of all non-human animals. At the forefront of this movement is the criticism of the relationship between animals and people throughout time. Humans have exploited animals for food, tools, and clothing for millenia. Animal products contributed to the growth of trade markets, agriculture, and capitalism, but the development of animal welfare activists critique the assumption that non-human species are ours to manipulate. According to this social movement, it is essential to not only end the use of animals for research, food, clothing, and entertainment, but to end the notion that animals are human property..

In the early 1900s, when this fur coat was likely made and purchased, the use of animals for clothing had few challengers. Fur was a fashion statement, and was glamorized as a symbol of the elite class. The fur industry promoted this fashion as something that makes “Mrs. and Miss America feel like her sophisticated, wealthy and smartly dressed sisters of the big cities,” (“Ersatz Mink, Sable Defended”, 1949, n.p.). Women at the time appreciated their coats for the luxury, and this concept was advertised extensively (Figure II). Movie stars and socialites flaunted fur coats and accessories, increasing their popularity with Americans.

The popularity of this coat transcended racial divisions. Some advertisements even portrayed fur coats as a way to elevate black women’s status (“Laura Lee is Wrapped Up, 1973, n.p). Meanwhile, the development of “fur farms” in the Victorian Era made it possible to meet the increasing demands of the public. Advertisements for these coats displayed alluring and sexualized images. Fur was not simply a trend- it was a movement that captured the essence of the American dream at this time. Many fur factory workers took pride in their product, knowing how valuable the garment was to consumers (Stars, 1905, n.p.). Fur was in such high demand that significant work was done to ensure full authenticity of the product (“The Truth Seal Comes to Omaha”, 1914). Fur styles also started becoming more practical to match American women progression through society (“Fur Coats Practical”, 1942, n.p.). (Figure III) Fur was so ingrained in society that little to no critique was made of this practice.

Animal welfare beliefs first appeared in legislation with the Cruelty to Animal Act in Great Britain in 1835. Advocacy for “animal rights” continued to spread, and gained support during the Darwinian Revolution. Animal rights activism became more popular globally, but the United States did not pass the American Animal Welfare Act until 1966 (Fletcher, 2017). In short, the introduction of the animal welfare movement and the appearance of restrictions in the use of animals in clothing were caused by changing viewpoints on the matter of fur in clothing.

Animal activist groups that arose in the mid to late 1900s evoked the changing beliefs surrounding furs in fashion. In a mere 100 years, animal pelts changed from symbols of luxury to cruelty. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), founded in 1980, argued that animals are not ours to “eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.” This statement signaled an ideological shift away from a core tenet of global historical development, which depended upon animals for food, labor, clothing, shelter and tools. Significantly, PETA declared the use of animal hides in the clothing trade one of their four major focuses of their organization (PETA, 2018). They advocated for animal- free clothing, not only because of the industry’s impact on species populations, but because of the treatment of animals in the fur trade. This was an ethical, as much as an ecological argument. When the public discovered the process of trapping, starving, and torturing creatures for fur, activists condemned the practice for its inhumanity.

PETA, along with many other organizations such as the Fur Free Alliance and Respect for Animals group, campaigned for the ethical treatment of animals, and promoted the notion that humans are not entitled to use animals for their own gain. As these beliefs became more widespread, changes in practices and legislation affected American life. Hunting was a popular past time and a source of food for many people, and changes in the restrictions on hunting affected American life. Revelations of the practices of the fur trade increased the demand for legal protection of animals, particularly after the evidence that hunting on average leads to an 83% reduction in mammal populations near towns (Walter, 1948, 236-240). Legislation evolved to defend the animals, and the number of animals in a species that could be hunted was limited. This was an extreme contrast to human-animal relations in the past, in which humans regularly exploited animals to use as a resource. In this sense, the consequences of the fur trade changed some of the longest standing ideas in human history.

The effects of the fur trade and the animal rights movement assumed local, national, and global significance. Though Omaha is not often considered a major player in the fur trade, it was central to its early history. Nebraska’s first city, Bellevue (now in the Omaha metro area) began along the Missouri River as a fur trade post (Fletcher, North Omaha History). North Omaha briefly served as a bartering station, and filtered ships with furs in and out of the Nebraska area. A French aristocrat, with funding by the American Fur Company, opened this trading hub known as Cabanne’s post. Additionally, excavations of Fontenelle’s Trading Post in Sarpy County revealed another fur trade headquarters between the settlers and the Native Americans (“Fur Trade”, n.d.). Evidence of the fur trade’s existence in Omaha reveals its widespread significance along the American frontier, and has allowed animal welfare activists to analyze the effects of fur clothing on species’ populations in a variety of settings. According to Hoffman et al in 2009, fur harvesters had the most in depth knowledge of mink populations. These harvesters were occasionally consulted on the status of these populations, demonstrating the extent to which hunting affected mammal populations. Activism in the interest of animals occurred on a local level as well. The Nebraska Humane Society was not created in response to the fur industry, but was a result of the ideas of compassion and ethical treatment of animals spread by the animal welfare movement (“About NHS”).

The fur coat is significant beyond the history of Omaha. It signifies a broad shift in human-animal relationships in the context of the Anthropocene on a global level. Since the 1300s, fur has played a role in currency, gifts, and dowry in Russian culture (Peterson 2010). Quebec had the largest fur trading posts in the world in the 1700s, and beaver furs were shipped throughout Europe from the United States during the colonial era due to popular demand. According to the Legal and Historical Animal Center, Russian fur farms even bred animals for “desirable mutations” to obtain the highest quality furs. Furthermore, commercial seal hunting in Canada and Greenland alone comprised 50% of all seals hunted in the world (Peterson 2010). Even indigenous communities in the Arctic were involved in the prosperity of the fur industry, hunting polar bears for their hides. Fur popularity became so widespread that the International Fur Federation, an organization that represents and regulates the global fur trade, was founded in 1949. According to the International Fur Federation website, this organization claims that it meets acceptable standards for animal welfare, but continues to face protests from the international animal rights movement. For example, PETA UK disputes the claim that the International Fur Federation’s regulations are sufficient and argues that animals are still suffering inhumane conditions and being killed by poison, physical beating, or electrocution (PETA UK, 2018).

In 1988, the World Society for Protection of Animals launched their widespread “No Fur” campaign. This campaign grew in popularity, and 50 other animal welfare organizations around the world soon adopted the program (Peterson 2010).  Inspired by the increase in international protests, PETA began to use a more aggressive approach. At a hotel dinner, they even put a dead racoon on the editor- in -chief of Vogue’s plate for promoting fur in fashion (Peterson 2010). This protest was highly publicized, and serves as an example of the many public acts that contributed to fur coats’ negative image. As a result of these acts, more countries adopted legislation to protect species. Canada, which was one of the most prominent locations in the fur trade, now has regional laws to regulate trapping. The World Society for Protection of Animals and international PETA branches continue to advocate for global change in the fur trade.

Before the rise of the animal welfare movement, society was dominated by a survival of the fittest attitude. If a superior species could control and exploit another, it was their right to do so. This belief justified continued exploitation of animals. Little to no research considered animal behavior or emotions, and animals were considered more as tools than living creatures. Into the twentieth century, these beliefs remained powerful and justified by Western science. Dr. C Bell Taylor’s On the Rights of Animals, published in 1908, describes the use of horses for education. Students would “perform 64 operations on the same living horse”, simply tying down the creature to use for experiments. Another article titled “The Animal Mind” supported this outdated view as well, describing a farmer who stuffed a cow’s dead calf with hay so appease her so she would produce milk. When the stuffed calf ripped open, the author states that the mother cow began to eat the hay (Brewster, 1910). Animals could and should be exploited, by virtue of their perceived lack of emotions.

The rise of animal rights activism prompted many people to see animal in a new light. It was a cultural movement that emphasized the similarities between humans and other species, and reported that all animals (ourselves included) shared common traits. “Humanizing” other animals became a more common practice, and the market for fur changed as well. Fur proponents long argued their products supplied economic benefits: as long as there was a demand for fur coats, the industry would exploit animals to supply the goods. However, when American consumers began to prefer and even pay more for animal products created in humane conditions, it became more realistic to implement animal rights in a capitalist society (Spain, 2018, 1-14).

The fur coat sparked debates over the treatment of non-human creatures, and justice for animals has continued to evolve as a movement by the general population. The fur industry is now a subject of ethical, as much as ecological or economic concern. The increase in concern for animals’ well- being has been reflected in social media, films, documentaries, books, and articles (Psychology Today). As a result of activism, SeaWorld has ended their orca whales in captivity program, and the Ringling Brothers circuses have stopped using elephants for entertainment (Bekoff, 2016).[AS14]  According to a 2015 Gallup Poll, one- third of Americans believe animals “deserve the same rights as people, to be free from harm and exploitation” (Bekoff, 2016). This reflects the extent to which the animal rights argument has grown, from scarce and unpopular product restrictions to a vast and powerful social movement.

The change in ideology surrounding fur coats marks a significant change in global history – and one that challenges the overwhelmingly negative assessments of human-nature relations in the Anthropocene. In an era dominated by human activity, changes in people’s mindsets have an extensive effect on culture. In the case of animal welfare, these effects take the form of increased legislation to protect animals, social movements supporting the ethical treatment of all creatures, and a more comprehensive view of the relationship between animals and humans. According to an article in Psychology Today, “future advancements for animals could help enlighten and benefit us, similar to how recognizing the rights of women and girls has also helped men and boys” (Bekoff, 2016). Historically, fur coats symbolized wealth and social status. Today, however, many interpret them as symbols of animal cruelty. This transition demonstrates human capacity for change on an ideological level, and illustrates how changes in people’s beliefs influence the culture of the Anthropocene.

Creator

India Claflin
Brooke Yang

Source

The Durham Museum Permanent Collection

Citation

India Claflin Brooke Yang, “Fur Coat,” Omaha in the Anthropocene, accessed October 4, 2024, https://www.steppingintothemap.com/anthropocene/items/show/31.

Output Formats

Embed

Copy the code below into your web page

Geolocation