Marie E. Seitz (MarieEliz@AOL.COM)
Sun, 29 Oct 1995 01:14:11 -0400

>My dictionary says "beast 1a: a living creature: animal as distinguished
> plant 1b: any lower animal as distinguished on the one hand from man."
> I personally find your attempt to rewrite definitions, however
> well-intentioned, misguided and more offensive that Matthew Hill's accepted
> usage of the word "beast."
>My response:
>I like chimps, but I am so glad that God made them so different from
>humans so that no one can confuse beast from man. A chimp is a chimp is a
chimp is >a chimp. A beast by any other name would still smell pretty darn
bad as chimpanzees >have terrible body odor.

The responses to my comment were very interesting indeed. In response I would
like to say that I hastily commented. It is true that when someone uses the
term "beast," one thinks of it is as a derogatory term (when used in
reference to humans). This is probably why I reacted the way I did when the
term was used. The more I study chimps the more I feel that they are indeed
almost human. I did not want to redefine the definition. My comment was
unfortunately emotionally based.

Marie Papachatzis (formerly Seitz)
Dept. of Anthropology
SUNY at Buffalo