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 time period greatly influences the texts we read for Thursday. In the first article "Meat is Necessary" people really didnt know about the health concerns with meat. Meat was still seen as an essential to healthy living wheras today we know that we can substitute other forms of protein in out diet besides meat. The article didnt want people to stop eating meat it just wanted butchers to lower their prices so that people could eat more of it. This writers audience was the general public. He was encourgaing people to eat meat and assuring them that it was still a staple for the American way of life. The Meatrix was obviously influnced by the time period since it played off the movie The Matrix. The Meatrix got its point across to an audience I would guess to be ranging from 18-25. Just the way in which they presented the problems caused by factory farms seemed to be on the level of late teens early twenties. If you showed that video to a first grader they would be more interested in why the cow was wearing sunglasses not what was really going on. And if you showed that video to someone in their late thirties I feel as if they would of dismissed it as juvenile or poorly presented. I think the PETA video was presented in this same sort of way. I personally thought the video was poorly presented and made me want to go eat more meat just because of how stupid some of their reasons were. When they said that meat makes you fat I about died laughing. The video seemed to me that it would work on 12 - 15 year old girls who wanted to say they helped save little piglets. Just the way it was presented and the random reasons they gave didnt sit well with me. But the audience PETA was going for may have been in that age range and if so then they did a super job. However I think they meant to reach alot more than just 12-14 year old girls but missed their target when they started rambling the same basic things over and over.
The Meatrix video was made after 1999 because that is when the matrix was made. People who have never seen the movie or know the movie might not get the meatrix. The historical moments of now a days is very different than 30 years ago. Now a day’s people are more health conscience. They worry about their weight and many other things that they will be ingesting. 30 years ago people didn’t care what they ate. The second video Chew On This is a disturbing video of animals being treated cruelly and inhumanely. Something like this is something that wouldn’t be seen years ago. It is something that people feel is getting out of hand.
To get points across one has to be relevant. If texts aren't relevant to the time, meaning is lost and the audience doesn't receive what the author is trying to give them. In the articles from the New York Times, their take on vegetarianism is that its wrong and that you are suppose to eat meat. At that point and time the context was relevant because slaughter houses and all the industrialization of meat wasn't as serious as it is now. That is why as you look at the videos and article from more recent times the context and form changes. The Meatrix is a spin off of a popular movie, so the audience can relate and is interested in the context. The tone changes as well especially with the PETA video. Their message is that by not being a vegetarian you are being a small person because you are personally allowing numerous things to happen that you know are wrong. It is kind of cool to see that in the earlier articles they mention the high cost of meat and the main reason the factor farms exist today is because its lower in cost. The vegetarians ultimate message stays the same.
When I initially read "Meat is Necessary" I didn't see the date until I reached the bottom of the page and say it was published in 1899. This tidbit of information changed my perspective, though I still see some relevant issues today with the economy; people may be resorting to other forms of protein due to the high costs of meat. The vocabulary is a bit different, for instance stalwart was new to me. Also you can see how the US is being compared to Britain.
The PETA commercial uses technology to provoke emotional to support their cause and hope to impact the reader in ways which text cannot. Prior to technology emotions couldn't be played on like this.
To me all the pieces stood out immensely in their own way because they all pertain to a certain period in time. "Meat is Necessary" seemed was obviously written in the 19th century because it had little scientific analysis and some of the rhetorical strategies were very illogical. "The Meatrix was also obiovusly done concurrently with The movie "The Matrix" because it tried to play off of that craze. The PETA video's context is a lot more complex. They try to use the older male, african-american female, the white young female all appeal to different types of people. They also all use different types of logic and emotions in their small little phrases during the video. The video is also very recent and they bring up health, an extremely apparent issue in recent times.
In "Vegetarianism" Peter Singer explores the many reasons people have chosen not to eat meat over the ages. He shows us that in the beginning many people chose not to eat meat based on religious beliefs or the belief that animals have rights. He compares this with current reasons for becoming Vegetarian such as economic, environmental and health issues. As the reasons for why people choose to become Vegetarian develop so too does publication and logical arguments in relation to their time period. The article from 1899 used very little science and only the word and inclination of physicians to argue regarding the consumption of meat where as now almost any argument regarding vegetarianism includes scientific facts and reasoning grounded in solid logic.
I think every article/ video has its own valid point as to why we should or should not eat meat. The PETA video was probably the most graphic and makes you feel the worst about eating meat. However they use some images and points they are not necessarily valid. Some people are vegetarians just because they don't like the taste of meat, not necessarily because they think its wrong. Everyone has their own reasons for what they eat. When people diet they often will eat less meat in effort to lose weight. All sorts of different cultures have their own reasons about what they eat too. In the piece by Crichton-Browne it states how Sir James said that women should look tall slim and middle-aged. Back then they had to wear all sorts of clothing to try to make themselves look skinny. Fortunately in today's cultures we don't have to worry about that. The butchers meat article obviously if for eating meat and part of it states that it in todays human race animal food is necessary, especially for the young and constitutionally weak. All of these articles take very different approaches as to what people should eat and why. I think it is great that we live in a country that can choose an have the freedom of what we want to eat.
When reading these articles and watching the videos I found it very easy to stay focused on the those done in the context of my generation. And those done around the turn of the 20th century I found myself being distracted and not focused. I noticed the lack of scientific data in the New York Times articles from over one hundred years ago. Their attitudes toward those people joining the fad of vegetarianism during that time was like, oh... that is cute, look at them over there not eating meat. In the more recent (date) examples given to us I noticed how many facts are thrown on you. The fact that two of the examples are in the medium of film helps to create a visual affect not at all available to people during 1899 or 1907, which can help to grab your audience better especially if your audience is accustom to that visual information. Given that there is major contrast to the videos and the 1900's articles, I feel that they are telling a different story of vegetarianism that is known only in the time that it was written, and the techniques used to give the viewer/reader insights are also based off of the context of time in which they were written.
All the pieces were made deliberately for a certain time period. The Meatrix video was obviously made prior to the movie the Matrix. The Matrix wasn’t made until the late 1990’s so it must have been after that. You can also tell that this video was done somewhat recently because animal cruelty was not a big issue in the past. Also people were not as health conscious in previous time periods.
I did not know that people 110 years ago had problems with vegetarians as much as they do now. It seems the reason for becomming vegetarian have changed over time though. I think that over the past century, less has been focused on the price of meat as a factor and more has been focused on the ethical treatment, strongly backed by peta. The language used in the article 1899 article is geared more towards the ailments that a non-meat diet can cause. The Meatrix was my favorite of the links. It was humorous and factual without the somewhat disturbing images of peta. I hate peta. I believe that Vegetarianism by Peter Singer was a well written article explaining the rise of vegetarianism; which include health, ecology, and concern for animals, along with some reasons why. most of these articles were well written for their time and their target audiences.
I agree with what Mark said about being able to follow the newer readings easier. I actually had to keep re-reading the exerpt from the 19th century. I think that the peta video did a good job in trying to bring every walk of life into the picture. However, they also used very disturbing (what I would call worse case scenarios) images of animals being abused. I know that when ever we slaughter hogs we don't throw cinder blocks on their heads. It is a rather quick process. That video portrayed that the death was a long painful one which I have never witnessed in 20 years of watching slaughtering. However, they were using this technique to make it seem that all animals that are consumed by humans go through this terrifying experience. Plus, PeTA also used issues that are up to date like health and weight loss. Not to mention that they mentioned Mad Cow Disease and poop being in chicken meat. Neither of these issues would have been concerns of people during the time period of the first newspaper article from 1899. During that time period pasteurization and germ theorys were still relatively young and wouldn't have had much of an effect on the public.
Int he article "Meat is Necessary" it is clear that what is known now about meat and its health effects was not known in the time the article was written. This text was written from the standpoint that meat is a necessary element to the human diet. there wasn't much science to back up any of their claims, it was just simply stated and fact. The animated short entitled "Meatrix" was the material that struck me most. Obviously, this was created in modern times. Everything from the music, to the spoof off of the Matrix movies was modern. The content of the material was a direct result of radical, extreme organizations like PETA. It was extremely one-sided with no scientific back up. This type of media appeals to a young crowd. If the creator of this clip was targeting an older audience, they would not have included a movie like the matrix or a robotic machine destroying family farms. They also would not have referred to the meat industry as a "machine".
In my opinion, media today is much more persuasive than the media around 1900. As Matt said, the use of technology helps the cause. In "Butchers Meat," the author told the readers the Briton's loved eating me and they conquered the world, so obviously everyone should eat meat. That may have worked in 1899, but in the new millennium, you don't see that sort of propaganda. Rather, you have groups like PETA creating short videos using sickening images and cruel practices to get their points across.
I actually found these reading interesting. It was nice to see how meat was seen 100 years ago and compare it to how we see it today. When I read "Meat is Necessary" I was amused to see how they were replying to the requests to write against meat. This editorial was efficient in saying that it is ridiculous to be a vegetarian. Although that was the case back then it is not the case now seeing how many people choose not to eat meat for moral reasons. The context is crazy to look at because the audiences were so much different. "Meat is Necessary" is writing to a group of people who were mostly eating meat anyway and based their living on it. Peta on the other hand is much newer and thus is trying to reach out to people who are already vegetarians. They will in turn take its videos to people who may be avid eaters of meat. So we are really looking at two different eras of eating and food choices are vastly different than they were 100 years ago. It's quite a surprise to see the difference in the two.
Time period has a great influence on purpose of an article. If the purpose is not relevant to the time, the purpose becomes meaningless. Such is the case of the "Butchers Meat" article. This article uses little or no scientific evidence to back up the claims that the writer makes. Nowadays these claims would be torn apart by number of experts in the health science field. Also, this article is mostly about people not eating meat for the purpose of lowering the price of meat. This idea may not seem relevant today, but, it actually have some marketability in today's society due to the fact that for many people the value of a dollar is greater than the value of good health. The audience of a particular piece may be in part determined by the method of delivering a message. Young people of the twenty-first century are more likely to watch a short video found on You Tube, than they are to read an article found buried within a newspaper which may be restricted to a certain local.
The first article I read was the editorial in the 1899 edition of the New York Times. When first reading this article I was almost confused as to what was being talked about because of my unfamiliarity of this time period. After analyzing the article further, it is possible to see that the time period and historical moment of this time affects the language and the purpose of the article being written. The use of language seemed almost odd at first. From the use of the word, dyspepsia, meaning indigestion, to the word panacea, meaning a cure all, it is evident of the time period in which this article is written. Now a days these words are rarely used, and if dyspepsia is used today it is more figurative than it is used in the article. It is also evident talks about pineapples and how it causes allergies in people, but does not use the word allergy. After all, this concept was not developed until later. Another indication of the time period is when the author discusses seafood and how it is not available unless you are on the coast. Back then it was not possible for them to preserve seafood for long trips so that it could reach the people off of the coasts. Lastly the time period is indicated when the author talks about eating lower forms of life to stay healthy. He makes a reference to it becoming the end of the world, which may have been a thought instilled in people then being the end of the millennium and people having fears that it may be the end of the world. Along with this the purpose of this article is very different than an article that may be written today. It seems as almost when this article was written the thought of being a vegetarian was a bad thing. It seems like it was not accepted by most of the general public, and those who decided to become vegetarians were thought of as monomaniacs, or have an obsession with this one thing only. By the use of this name calling he degrades vegetarians and even uses the British, who were meat eaters, and conquered the world to show the significance of eating meat. The idea of being a vegetarian today is much more widely accepted by people, and this article may offend many, but since it was written in this time period, and not many were vegetarians, there are not many people who would take offense to this. In this article it is especially apparent to me how the time period affects the language and the purpose that the author uses to write to his readers.
The time period greatly influences the texts we read for Thursday. In the first article "Meat is Necessary" people really didnt know about the health concerns with meat. Meat was still seen as an essential to healthy living wheras today we know that we can substitute other forms of protein in out diet besides meat. The article didnt want people to stop eating meat it just wanted butchers to lower their prices so that people could eat more of it. This writers audience was the general public. He was encourgaing people to eat meat and assuring them that it was still a staple for the American way of life.
ReplyDeleteThe Meatrix was obviously influnced by the time period since it played off the movie The Matrix. The Meatrix got its point across to an audience I would guess to be ranging from 18-25. Just the way in which they presented the problems caused by factory farms seemed to be on the level of late teens early twenties. If you showed that video to a first grader they would be more interested in why the cow was wearing sunglasses not what was really going on. And if you showed that video to someone in their late thirties I feel as if they would of dismissed it as juvenile or poorly presented. I think the PETA video was presented in this same sort of way. I personally thought the video was poorly presented and made me want to go eat more meat just because of how stupid some of their reasons were. When they said that meat makes you fat I about died laughing. The video seemed to me that it would work on 12 - 15 year old girls who wanted to say they helped save little piglets. Just the way it was presented and the random reasons they gave didnt sit well with me. But the audience PETA was going for may have been in that age range and if so then they did a super job. However I think they meant to reach alot more than just 12-14 year old girls but missed their target when they started rambling the same basic things over and over.
The Meatrix video was made after 1999 because that is when the matrix was made. People who have never seen the movie or know the movie might not get the meatrix. The historical moments of now a days is very different than 30 years ago. Now a day’s people are more health conscience. They worry about their weight and many other things that they will be ingesting. 30 years ago people didn’t care what they ate. The second video Chew On This is a disturbing video of animals being treated cruelly and inhumanely. Something like this is something that wouldn’t be seen years ago. It is something that people feel is getting out of hand.
ReplyDeleteTo get points across one has to be relevant. If texts aren't relevant to the time, meaning is lost and the audience doesn't receive what the author is trying to give them. In the articles from the New York Times, their take on vegetarianism is that its wrong and that you are suppose to eat meat. At that point and time the context was relevant because slaughter houses and all the industrialization of meat wasn't as serious as it is now. That is why as you look at the videos and article from more recent times the context and form changes. The Meatrix is a spin off of a popular movie, so the audience can relate and is interested in the context. The tone changes as well especially with the PETA video. Their message is that by not being a vegetarian you are being a small person because you are personally allowing numerous things to happen that you know are wrong. It is kind of cool to see that in the earlier articles they mention the high cost of meat and the main reason the factor farms exist today is because its lower in cost. The vegetarians ultimate message stays the same.
ReplyDeleteWhen I initially read "Meat is Necessary" I didn't see the date until I reached the bottom of the page and say it was published in 1899. This tidbit of information changed my perspective, though I still see some relevant issues today with the economy; people may be resorting to other forms of protein due to the high costs of meat. The vocabulary is a bit different, for instance stalwart was new to me. Also you can see how the US is being compared to Britain.
ReplyDeleteThe PETA commercial uses technology to provoke emotional to support their cause and hope to impact the reader in ways which text cannot. Prior to technology emotions couldn't be played on like this.
To me all the pieces stood out immensely in their own way because they all pertain to a certain period in time. "Meat is Necessary" seemed was obviously written in the 19th century because it had little scientific analysis and some of the rhetorical strategies were very illogical. "The Meatrix was also obiovusly done concurrently with The movie "The Matrix" because it tried to play off of that craze. The PETA video's context is a lot more complex. They try to use the older male, african-american female, the white young female all appeal to different types of people. They also all use different types of logic and emotions in their small little phrases during the video. The video is also very recent and they bring up health, an extremely apparent issue in recent times.
ReplyDeleteIn "Vegetarianism" Peter Singer explores the many reasons people have chosen not to eat meat over the ages. He shows us that in the beginning many people chose not to eat meat based on religious beliefs or the belief that animals have rights. He compares this with current reasons for becoming Vegetarian such as economic, environmental and health issues. As the reasons for why people choose to become Vegetarian develop so too does publication and logical arguments in relation to their time period. The article from 1899 used very little science and only the word and inclination of physicians to argue regarding the consumption of meat where as now almost any argument regarding vegetarianism includes scientific facts and reasoning grounded in solid logic.
ReplyDeleteI think every article/ video has its own valid point as to why we should or should not eat meat. The PETA video was probably the most graphic and makes you feel the worst about eating meat. However they use some images and points they are not necessarily valid. Some people are vegetarians just because they don't like the taste of meat, not necessarily because they think its wrong. Everyone has their own reasons for what they eat. When people diet they often will eat less meat in effort to lose weight. All sorts of different cultures have their own reasons about what they eat too.
ReplyDeleteIn the piece by Crichton-Browne it states how Sir James said that women should look tall slim and middle-aged. Back then they had to wear all sorts of clothing to try to make themselves look skinny. Fortunately in today's cultures we don't have to worry about that. The butchers meat article obviously if for eating meat and part of it states that it in todays human race animal food is necessary, especially for the young and constitutionally weak. All of these articles take very different approaches as to what people should eat and why. I think it is great that we live in a country that can choose an have the freedom of what we want to eat.
When reading these articles and watching the videos I found it very easy to stay focused on the those done in the context of my generation. And those done around the turn of the 20th century I found myself being distracted and not focused. I noticed the lack of scientific data in the New York Times articles from over one hundred years ago. Their attitudes toward those people joining the fad of vegetarianism during that time was like, oh... that is cute, look at them over there not eating meat. In the more recent (date) examples given to us I noticed how many facts are thrown on you. The fact that two of the examples are in the medium of film helps to create a visual affect not at all available to people during 1899 or 1907, which can help to grab your audience better especially if your audience is accustom to that visual information. Given that there is major contrast to the videos and the 1900's articles, I feel that they are telling a different story of vegetarianism that is known only in the time that it was written, and the techniques used to give the viewer/reader insights are also based off of the context of time in which they were written.
ReplyDeleteAll the pieces were made deliberately for a certain time period. The Meatrix video was obviously made prior to the movie the Matrix. The Matrix wasn’t made until the late 1990’s so it must have been after that. You can also tell that this video was done somewhat recently because animal cruelty was not a big issue in the past. Also people were not as health conscious in previous time periods.
ReplyDeleteI did not know that people 110 years ago had problems with vegetarians as much as they do now. It seems the reason for becomming vegetarian have changed over time though. I think that over the past century, less has been focused on the price of meat as a factor and more has been focused on the ethical treatment, strongly backed by peta. The language used in the article 1899 article is geared more towards the ailments that a non-meat diet can cause. The Meatrix was my favorite of the links. It was humorous and factual without the somewhat disturbing images of peta. I hate peta. I believe that Vegetarianism by Peter Singer was a well written article explaining the rise of vegetarianism; which include health, ecology, and concern for animals, along with some reasons why. most of these articles were well written for their time and their target audiences.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Mark said about being able to follow the newer readings easier. I actually had to keep re-reading the exerpt from the 19th century. I think that the peta video did a good job in trying to bring every walk of life into the picture. However, they also used very disturbing (what I would call worse case scenarios) images of animals being abused. I know that when ever we slaughter hogs we don't throw cinder blocks on their heads. It is a rather quick process. That video portrayed that the death was a long painful one which I have never witnessed in 20 years of watching slaughtering. However, they were using this technique to make it seem that all animals that are consumed by humans go through this terrifying experience. Plus, PeTA also used issues that are up to date like health and weight loss. Not to mention that they mentioned Mad Cow Disease and poop being in chicken meat. Neither of these issues would have been concerns of people during the time period of the first newspaper article from 1899. During that time period pasteurization and germ theorys were still relatively young and wouldn't have had much of an effect on the public.
ReplyDeleteInt he article "Meat is Necessary" it is clear that what is known now about meat and its health effects was not known in the time the article was written. This text was written from the standpoint that meat is a necessary element to the human diet. there wasn't much science to back up any of their claims, it was just simply stated and fact.
ReplyDeleteThe animated short entitled "Meatrix" was the material that struck me most. Obviously, this was created in modern times. Everything from the music, to the spoof off of the Matrix movies was modern. The content of the material was a direct result of radical, extreme organizations like PETA. It was extremely one-sided with no scientific back up. This type of media appeals to a young crowd. If the creator of this clip was targeting an older audience, they would not have included a movie like the matrix or a robotic machine destroying family farms. They also would not have referred to the meat industry as a "machine".
In my opinion, media today is much more persuasive than the media around 1900. As Matt said, the use of technology helps the cause. In "Butchers Meat," the author told the readers the Briton's loved eating me and they conquered the world, so obviously everyone should eat meat. That may have worked in 1899, but in the new millennium, you don't see that sort of propaganda. Rather, you have groups like PETA creating short videos using sickening images and cruel practices to get their points across.
ReplyDeleteI actually found these reading interesting. It was nice to see how meat was seen 100 years ago and compare it to how we see it today. When I read "Meat is Necessary" I was amused to see how they were replying to the requests to write against meat. This editorial was efficient in saying that it is ridiculous to be a vegetarian. Although that was the case back then it is not the case now seeing how many people choose not to eat meat for moral reasons. The context is crazy to look at because the audiences were so much different. "Meat is Necessary" is writing to a group of people who were mostly eating meat anyway and based their living on it. Peta on the other hand is much newer and thus is trying to reach out to people who are already vegetarians. They will in turn take its videos to people who may be avid eaters of meat. So we are really looking at two different eras of eating and food choices are vastly different than they were 100 years ago. It's quite a surprise to see the difference in the two.
ReplyDeleteTime period has a great influence on purpose of an article. If the purpose is not relevant to the time, the purpose becomes meaningless. Such is the case of the "Butchers Meat" article. This article uses little or no scientific evidence to back up the claims that the writer makes. Nowadays these claims would be torn apart by number of experts in the health science field. Also, this article is mostly about people not eating meat for the purpose of lowering the price of meat. This idea may not seem relevant today, but, it actually have some marketability in today's society due to the fact that for many people the value of a dollar is greater than the value of good health.
ReplyDeleteThe audience of a particular piece may be in part determined by the method of delivering a message. Young people of the twenty-first century are more likely to watch a short video found on You Tube, than they are to read an article found buried within a newspaper which may be restricted to a certain local.
The first article I read was the editorial in the 1899 edition of the New York Times. When first reading this article I was almost confused as to what was being talked about because of my unfamiliarity of this time period. After analyzing the article further, it is possible to see that the time period and historical moment of this time affects the language and the purpose of the article being written. The use of language seemed almost odd at first. From the use of the word, dyspepsia, meaning indigestion, to the word panacea, meaning a cure all, it is evident of the time period in which this article is written. Now a days these words are rarely used, and if dyspepsia is used today it is more figurative than it is used in the article. It is also evident talks about pineapples and how it causes allergies in people, but does not use the word allergy. After all, this concept was not developed until later. Another indication of the time period is when the author discusses seafood and how it is not available unless you are on the coast. Back then it was not possible for them to preserve seafood for long trips so that it could reach the people off of the coasts. Lastly the time period is indicated when the author talks about eating lower forms of life to stay healthy. He makes a reference to it becoming the end of the world, which may have been a thought instilled in people then being the end of the millennium and people having fears that it may be the end of the world.
ReplyDeleteAlong with this the purpose of this article is very different than an article that may be written today. It seems as almost when this article was written the thought of being a vegetarian was a bad thing. It seems like it was not accepted by most of the general public, and those who decided to become vegetarians were thought of as monomaniacs, or have an obsession with this one thing only. By the use of this name calling he degrades vegetarians and even uses the British, who were meat eaters, and conquered the world to show the significance of eating meat. The idea of being a vegetarian today is much more widely accepted by people, and this article may offend many, but since it was written in this time period, and not many were vegetarians, there are not many people who would take offense to this. In this article it is especially apparent to me how the time period affects the language and the purpose that the author uses to write to his readers.