10-27 for 10-29

1.       

“Thirteen states have effectively prohibited even discussion of the issue by passing food disparagement laws enabling agribusinesses to sue anyone who criticizes them in public, granting punitive damages and attorney’s fees for plaintiffs alone, regardless of the case’s outcome.” (Man-Animal Boundary, pg 3)

Yeah, this is one of those I can’t believe it’s true but I also do believe it’s true because of my barely-present faith in humanity. This passage immediately reminded me of a John Oliver episode, where he talks about the controversial business practices in food companies relating to chicken farms and the farmers who raise them. In the video, which I will share, it is revealed that chicken companies would give worse chickens if the farmers speak up about anything. In an interview, a farmer claims that in a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the best chicken and 10 being the worst, he would receive 8, 9, and 10s just for having a voice. If you would go further and talk about bad practices that the entire food industry has done, then the documentary Food, Inc. becomes relevant as well.

John Oliver on chicken farms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9wHzt6gBgI

2.       

“The first step to breaking through our denial of food animal suffering is recovering and expressing blocked trauma, restoring the repressed feelings that may have triggered apathy and depression. Then, allowing the compassionate grief to surface, we can direct it outward rather than inward and make the boundary more permeable.” (Man-Animal Boundary, pg 5)

As a first step, that’s fine, but it’s not the complete solution. When it comes to finding out a solution for something like the Man-Animal Boundary, I think emotion is a very good driving force, but it cannot be the *only* driving force, or else the actions taken could end up being misguided. A real solution to bringing an end to animal cruelty requires thinking and logic – the only way to break down a system managed by so many companies is to see how the system works and figuring out what can be changed.

3.       

“‘As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis.’” (Man-Animal Boundary, pg 5-6)

As I was watching Earthlings, the 2005 documentary, on Wednesday night, I found myself a bit conflicted in the few early minutes. I wasn’t sure what to think when the film related something like killing animals to something like the Holocaust. All I thought in my head were, “Okay this is a little far-fetched.” But quickly, I realized that all the documentary is trying to do is to inform us about how humans show no sympathy towards the killing of animals. This ties in to another quote that appears before this one, talking about how the less powerful is treated like “mere objects.” I do believe that this Man-Animal relationship is hard to discuss, and I mean hard as in we humans almost automatically personify these animals because we are at a much higher level of intelligence and sophistication. We sometimes forget that some animals’ thought patterns are really black and white, nowhere near as complicated as we make them out to be. It’s not surprising, though, given that so many stories that involve animals would have them talk and resemble characters. But Earthlings focuses on the *fact* that animals feel pain, and when it comes to slaughtering animals inefficiently and making them suffer tremendously, yes “all men were Nazis.”

4.       

“Literary theory and criticism has prepared us to study individual reader response to such works, to pay attention to our memories of childhood emotional experiences, to our current personal feelings […]” (Man-Animal Boundary, pg 8)

I noticed that right at the end of this quote, the writer refers to Professor Jerome Bump! Reading this passage, I related to both the writer and to Bump, especially since Bump himself talked about the importance and purity of childhood and how we must hold on to our memories. But this passage connects it to literary theory and criticism in general, which is very interesting and true when you think about it. One of the main reasons why we love reading and analyzing literary works is not only because we wish to understand the messages that the author is conveying, but we also wish to take our own experiences and find ways to connect them with what we have read. We reflect on these works, and that’s why there are some literary pieces that we hold onto tighter over time. Then, we get to learn more about ourselves in this process.

5.       

“While most readers of this chapter focus on Caterpillar’s key question, ‘Who are YOU?’ Pigeon asks the ultimate question of posthumanism, ‘WHAT are you?’” (Biophilia and Emotive Ethics, pg 64)

It’s very interesting to see the common theme of identity be played with biophilia in this example. Looks like I fit in the “most readers” category, since my blog post back then focused on just the Caterpillar. But I moved a bit further by talking about both characters’ thoughts on transformation – Alice is afraid of it while the Caterpillar comments that it’s no big deal. But really, the Pigeon’s usage of the word “What” is compelling: It brings up the inevitable truth that humans are still animals. We’re just sophisticated and intelligent enough to think otherwise.

6.       

“The scale of slaughterhouse murder now is, of course, much, much greater than in Carroll’s day.” (Biophilia and Emotive Ethics, pg 69)

Curiouser and curiouser! Now I’m thinking about what Carroll would have written about if he were alive today. Something like Animal Farm but without the politics? Or is he still going to keep that nonsensical atmosphere? I can imagine something alongside The NeverEnding Story but the magical creatures are just replaced with animals. That would be interesting as a connection to Carroll, since both Carroll and NeverEnding Story convey the moral of holding on to our childhood memories and dreams.

South Park's parody of PETA: http://www.hulu.com/watch/250055

7.       

“She not only thinks of the emotions of others, she shares them, feeling them herself […]” (pg 303)

I’m happy to say that I’m like Alice in some respect. I’m a guy and I can cry in movies. There I said it! Why? Because I don’t just think about the heartbreak that the characters are feeling. I feel the heavy weight and that unspeakable pain in their chests. It is this thoughtfulness and ability to sense other’s feelings that I show great care to my family, especially my younger sister, and finally my girlfriend. The ability to feel for others helps you put others in front of yourself. My main motto, out of many, is definitely: Give happiness to other people and you will find happiness yourself.