A blog about the rhetoric of food as discussed early in the morning.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Thinking about context
Please consider how the time period or historical moment of the texts assigned for Thursday impacts their language and purpose. How does context impact audience, especially discourse communities?
the language used in the texts varies greatly as you go more recent in history. There were a few phrases used in the 1907 and 1899 article that i did not know or had to look up. The purposes behind the articles are completly opposite as well. in the 1899 article, the reasaon for not eating meat was because of how expensive it was. The writer also wrote that grains cause illness, and that certain foods such as fish are unknown as to what they do or if they are edible.Knowlege of food nutrition was obviously little. The recent article was about ethical reasons. The meatrix and peta video were about fair treatment of animals and were able to use images to show the audience their purpose. It seems that as techonology increases the audiences needs change and so do their interests. The more we know about the food we eat, the less we seem to care about prices or dangers of other foods.
The context of the assigned readings for thurs. were extremely different, I agree with Kimmah in saying that the nutritional knowledge of food was very little and was very evident in the article that was written in 1899. The writer seemed to be writing for economical reasons and not for nutrition or animal cruelty. Although the purposes of the article were about prices it is still somewhat applicable to today, the cost of meat is still very high in comparison to vegitarian cuzine. The videos were disturbing and would make anyone double think at least where their meat is coming from let alone eating it. I think that the technological advances that have occured over time makes the presentation of information much different and has a far greater impact on readers or viewers.
The context for the early writings was a little more difficult to follow then the third article that we had to read for Thursday. I know that can be attributed to the time when they were written. I agree that they were more focused on the prices than the acutal nutritional values between meat and vegetarianism. I think that is due to the fact that most meats were for the upper class back in that time. The third article's context just gave views of some of the people and cultures that looked at eating meat as being a bad thing. Mostly talking about those that are "enlightened thinkers" and you can see where they are coming from on a philosophical level. I thought that the videos were interesting, it seems that these videos on focus on the extreme negatives that come with mass producing animals and meats and I understand that's what they want to do to try and shock people with what they are showing. I thought the PETA video became a little over the top.
From the readings, I felt like the recurring theme was that the advertised reasons to be a vegetarian and not eat meat have changed throughout the years. I found that Peter Singer's speech "Vegetarianism" did a very concise job of stating that fact, backing it up with evidence from different eras. I gathered that the reasoning has progressed from 'concern for the animals' since ancient times, and health issues which were brought to light in the 19th and 20th centuries, to the ecological issues we are realizing now. The two columns from the New York Times also helped show how important it is to think about context. I tried to imagine those same articles appearing in the New York Times today, and the impact/reaction would be radically different. Thus, realizing the context is vital to understanding the literature.
The articles are from various time periods, addressing different issues with why one shouldn’t eat meat. The audiences are obviously different. The earliest article discusses the high prices of meat, which was obviously the most important issue to the people at that time. The 1907 article addresses the dietary side of the argument. The most recent article is the most balanced, also most relatable. I think when people have multiple reasons when they are debating on becoming a vegetarian; these reasons are similar to the ones mentioned in this article. There is the ethical issue, as well as health, and ecological.
The videos feature simple concepts that anyone can understand. The meatrix video was humorous and engaging, even a child could learn from it. I found the other video distributed by peta, to be a bit ridiculous at times. I guess it was effective because the images made me not want to eat meat, or anything for that matter. The images in the video definitely affected me more than the words in the articles. I suppose that has something to do with this time period, people are more reactive towards images, ideas, and information that is presented in this fashion.
One thing that I noticed about the peta video "chew on this" when they flashed the text about eating meat and still calling yourself an environmentalist. I think that our time period sustainability and the environment are something that people are more focused on when compared to previous times. So many people in our culture focus on being good to the environment, and I thought it was really interesting that peta put the plug in making some people who consider themselves environmentalists think twice about their actual lifestyle.
I felt that the time period affected the pieces greatly. For instance, the 1898 piece mentions how meat has made the British “conquerors.” This would have been important in that year because of the Spanish-American war that only ended a few weeks before this article was published. Also, the Philippine-American War began almost immediately after the end of the Spanish American War. The piece also includes the most myths instead of evidence. In the 1907 article, religion is mentioned multiple times, pointing towards the importance of religion at least in “The New York Times” readership of the period. In the 1980’s piece, the author tries to look back to the classical period to find evidence of vegetarians who are vegetarians on the grounds of humane treatment of animals. By reflecting on these great thinkers of the past, the author seems to be implying that vegetarians of the 1980’s may be more evolved or smarter.
Context of writings can greatly affect its acceptance. In the instances above the authors all tried to tie into popular threads (war/national pride, religion, historical) of their period in order to get the readers to see their views. It’s just as popular today to use current events or public interests to help authors prove their points or demonize counter points of view.
The two article date back to 1899 and 1907, totally shows a different world. From the first txt Buthoer's meat, "The Britons, since the dawn of their history, have been huge eaters of mean, and too full-blooded" shows that the Western culture had always love meats in blood. While in comparison the Eastern "Asian" who love beat to be fully cook. From the Hindu/Buddhism we could see that Asian justify the idea of vegetarian.
The articles really do show a difference between the time change. It also shows how the industry of meat has changed so that it is easily accessible and understandable by the general public.
As far as the videos, while being scare tactics they do shed truth on the matter of the meat industry, a truth that we as meat eaters don't want to accept therefore writing it off as being radical.
I have to agree with Shaun on this. The context definitely plays a major factor in each piece. For the 1899 article not only were wars an issue, the US experience a great blizzard that would have affected meat prices as well as other agricultural products. Given the rise of American Industrialism and the issues with the stock market, it is no wonder that the main emphasis was on the economic side of the meat debate.
The later articles and videos were written in times where Americans had more "breathing room" in economic affairs. This coupled with advances in technology may have allowed for the shift in focus.
The main points that I took from these readings were the techniques for journalistic writing and the meat vs. veggie debate have a very long history. A history that, for all of their changes in context, is very similar to the present.
I also agree with shaun because context does play a hugh role in writing. since there was a war that just ended a few weeks before some of the wording the article used that was pulished in 1898 may have appealed to some of the readers. if someone was to read this article right after the war and had knowledge of the issue then they may have been affected by this.
the language used in the texts varies greatly as you go more recent in history. There were a few phrases used in the 1907 and 1899 article that i did not know or had to look up. The purposes behind the articles are completly opposite as well. in the 1899 article, the reasaon for not eating meat was because of how expensive it was. The writer also wrote that grains cause illness, and that certain foods such as fish are unknown as to what they do or if they are edible.Knowlege of food nutrition was obviously little. The recent article was about ethical reasons. The meatrix and peta video were about fair treatment of animals and were able to use images to show the audience their purpose. It seems that as techonology increases the audiences needs change and so do their interests. The more we know about the food we eat, the less we seem to care about prices or dangers of other foods.
ReplyDeleteThe context of the assigned readings for thurs. were extremely different, I agree with Kimmah in saying that the nutritional knowledge of food was very little and was very evident in the article that was written in 1899. The writer seemed to be writing for economical reasons and not for nutrition or animal cruelty. Although the purposes of the article were about prices it is still somewhat applicable to today, the cost of meat is still very high in comparison to vegitarian cuzine. The videos were disturbing and would make anyone double think at least where their meat is coming from let alone eating it. I think that the technological advances that have occured over time makes the presentation of information much different and has a far greater impact on readers or viewers.
ReplyDeleteThe context for the early writings was a little more difficult to follow then the third article that we had to read for Thursday. I know that can be attributed to the time when they were written. I agree that they were more focused on the prices than the acutal nutritional values between meat and vegetarianism. I think that is due to the fact that most meats were for the upper class back in that time. The third article's context just gave views of some of the people and cultures that looked at eating meat as being a bad thing. Mostly talking about those that are "enlightened thinkers" and you can see where they are coming from on a philosophical level. I thought that the videos were interesting, it seems that these videos on focus on the extreme negatives that come with mass producing animals and meats and I understand that's what they want to do to try and shock people with what they are showing. I thought the PETA video became a little over the top.
ReplyDeleteFrom the readings, I felt like the recurring theme was that the advertised reasons to be a vegetarian and not eat meat have changed throughout the years. I found that Peter Singer's speech "Vegetarianism" did a very concise job of stating that fact, backing it up with evidence from different eras. I gathered that the reasoning has progressed from 'concern for the animals' since ancient times, and health issues which were brought to light in the 19th and 20th centuries, to the ecological issues we are realizing now.
ReplyDeleteThe two columns from the New York Times also helped show how important it is to think about context. I tried to imagine those same articles appearing in the New York Times today, and the impact/reaction would be radically different. Thus, realizing the context is vital to understanding the literature.
The articles are from various time periods, addressing different issues with why one shouldn’t eat meat. The audiences are obviously different. The earliest article discusses the high prices of meat, which was obviously the most important issue to the people at that time. The 1907 article addresses the dietary side of the argument. The most recent article is the most balanced, also most relatable. I think when people have multiple reasons when they are debating on becoming a vegetarian; these reasons are similar to the ones mentioned in this article. There is the ethical issue, as well as health, and ecological.
ReplyDeleteThe videos feature simple concepts that anyone can understand. The meatrix video was humorous and engaging, even a child could learn from it. I found the other video distributed by peta, to be a bit ridiculous at times. I guess it was effective because the images made me not want to eat meat, or anything for that matter. The images in the video definitely affected me more than the words in the articles. I suppose that has something to do with this time period, people are more reactive towards images, ideas, and information that is presented in this fashion.
One thing that I noticed about the peta video "chew on this" when they flashed the text about eating meat and still calling yourself an environmentalist. I think that our time period sustainability and the environment are something that people are more focused on when compared to previous times. So many people in our culture focus on being good to the environment, and I thought it was really interesting that peta put the plug in making some people who consider themselves environmentalists think twice about their actual lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteI felt that the time period affected the pieces greatly. For instance, the 1898 piece mentions how meat has made the British “conquerors.” This would have been important in that year because of the Spanish-American war that only ended a few weeks before this article was published. Also, the Philippine-American War began almost immediately after the end of the Spanish American War. The piece also includes the most myths instead of evidence. In the 1907 article, religion is mentioned multiple times, pointing towards the importance of religion at least in “The New York Times” readership of the period. In the 1980’s piece, the author tries to look back to the classical period to find evidence of vegetarians who are vegetarians on the grounds of humane treatment of animals. By reflecting on these great thinkers of the past, the author seems to be implying that vegetarians of the 1980’s may be more evolved or smarter.
ReplyDeleteContext of writings can greatly affect its acceptance. In the instances above the authors all tried to tie into popular threads (war/national pride, religion, historical) of their period in order to get the readers to see their views. It’s just as popular today to use current events or public interests to help authors prove their points or demonize counter points of view.
The two article date back to 1899 and 1907, totally shows a different world. From the first txt Buthoer's meat, "The Britons, since the dawn of their history, have been huge eaters of mean, and too full-blooded" shows that the Western culture had always love meats in blood. While in comparison the Eastern "Asian" who love beat to be fully cook. From the Hindu/Buddhism we could see that Asian justify the idea of vegetarian.
ReplyDeleteThe articles really do show a difference between the time change. It also shows how the industry of meat has changed so that it is easily accessible and understandable by the general public.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the videos, while being scare tactics they do shed truth on the matter of the meat industry, a truth that we as meat eaters don't want to accept therefore writing it off as being radical.
I have to agree with Shaun on this. The context definitely plays a major factor in each piece. For the 1899 article not only were wars an issue, the US experience a great blizzard that would have affected meat prices as well as other agricultural products. Given the rise of American Industrialism and the issues with the stock market, it is no wonder that the main emphasis was on the economic side of the meat debate.
ReplyDeleteThe later articles and videos were written in times where Americans had more "breathing room" in economic affairs. This coupled with advances in technology may have allowed for the shift in focus.
The main points that I took from these readings were the techniques for journalistic writing and the meat vs. veggie debate have a very long history. A history that, for all of their changes in context, is very similar to the present.
I also agree with shaun because context does play a hugh role in writing. since there was a war that just ended a few weeks before some of the wording the article used that was pulished in 1898 may have appealed to some of the readers. if someone was to read this article right after the war and had knowledge of the issue then they may have been affected by this.
ReplyDelete