1.
“The word ‘outlaw,’ however legitimized by common usage, is
a betrayal. The cattle I am thinking of made their reputations in fierce,
hardy, persistent, resourceful, daring efforts to maintain freedom.” (page 388)
This is the opening sentence of the passage describing how
cattle should not be described as outlaws because there is a negative
connotation. The passage goes on to praise these animals, talking about how
they simply want freedom and refuse to be treated like animals that are
predestined to be slaughtered. Of course, it is understandable for a person to
not want to use the word “outlaw,” but I for one think that this is a case
where being called an outlaw is awesome! This is similar to how popular culture
has made the word “bad” to mean “cool” (thank you, Michael Jackson). That being
said, I agree with the author that there has to be another word out there that
fits the description better. “Runaway” is not a good word, nor can we use “fugitive”
or “escapee animal.” Maybe “freedom riders”? Oh wait, that’s taken.
2.
“In this brush the Longhorns ran wilder for a longer time
than in any other region. The outlaws that came out of it and that died of old
age in it, uncaptured, were magnificent preservers of their freedom.” (page
394)
This quote makes me proud and happy for the animals that
successfully find their freedom. It all reminds me of a fantastic 2013
documentary I watched called Blackfish. In summary, the documentary talked
about orca whales living in captivity, specifically SeaWorld, and it further
addressed all the events in the past where orca whales rebelled and attacked
whale trainers. When I watched it, I was shocked to learn that SeaWorld claimed
that orcas live longer in captivity, when if you were to look at hard facts, an
orca whale can live almost 6x longer in the wild than in captivity. I’d
recommend Blackfish to anybody who is
interested in this subject of animals in the wild vs. captivity. It has a great
inspiring agenda of telling the audience that these beautiful creatures deserve
to be together as a family, free in the wild.
3.
“The relationship between herders and the herded was a close
one in the early days, when herds were small and individual animals were still
important. One’s animals were far more than just food; they were part of the
tapestry of daily life, of one’s status in society. For subsistence farmers,
working animals were social instruments as well as companions, friends about
whom one had no illusions.” (page 415)
This is the kind of man-animal relationship that I adore –
the closest to this kind of relationship today is probably pets or horses that
are well fed and well used for transportation. I am reminded of Thomas Hardy’s
famous novel Far From the Madding Crowd,
where one of the main characters Gabriel Oak was socially respected because he
own a sheep farm. But most of all, I am reminded of one of my favorite books to
read when I was a child: Dinotopia.
The book’s setting was a fictional utopia inhabited by peaceful dinosaurs and
shipwrecked humans. Not only did it portray two species being able to peacefully
coexist, but it even included a societal code which is close to other belief
systems we have read about in class. Some of these codes include “Survival of
all or none,” “Give more, take less,” and the most famous one, “One raindrop
raises the sea.”
4.
“[…] as oxen and buffalo (bovines) are useful in farming and
are respected.” (page 426)
Being of Chinese and Taiwanese origin myself, I can 100%
believe this statement as the reason why the Chinese people would refuse to eat
beef simply because they were economically useful to the citizens. We have
studied that the Indian people refuse to eat beef for either religious reasons
or for moral reasons. It is quite stereotypically humorous to see the Chinese
refuse to eat for a pure technical reason.
5.
“This official prohibition was in place until 1872, when it
was officially proclaimed that Emperor Meiji consumed beef and mutton, which
transformed the country’s dietary considerations as a means of modernizing the
country, particularly with regard to consumption of beef.” (page 427)
Okay, this is also believable, but I think it can apply to
any country because people are mostly foolish when it comes to listening to
authority figures. The passage above basically means the Japanese people did
not eat beef until the Emperor did. Then *everyone* jumped on the bandwagon and
did it too. What if the new Queen of England chose a vegan diet? Did the
Japanese people change their diet simply because the Emperor had much greater
power of his people at the time? Maybe if one refused to eat beef, he/she would
be considered as a rebel of the Emperor. This is a topic worth diving deeper
into at some other time.
No comments:
Post a Comment