How have the debates changed over the years concerning meat and vegetarian diets? Do you see resonances among the texts? How has the "merry war" described in the NYTimes 1907 article escalated or cooled? How do new genres and modes play a part in the changes?
I think that there has been an abundance of new information found in the nutrition fields concerning vegetarian and meat diets. For those who chose to be vegetarian, there are not many more alternatives to meeting the complete protein needs without eating actual meat. However, it is very likely that most vegetarians do not make a conscious effort to meet complete protein needs and most likely just intake an unneeded amount of carbohydrates and incomplete proteins. Many of the arguments do echo those in the past by saying its just how the food chain works, or God put animals on the earth for humans to eat. I do not think the war going on is merry in the least. Many of the vegetarians who have ridiculous mindset as those involved with PETA and violent in their messages and do not necessarily send their messages subtly or with any intelligent back up. These who fight the war pry on those with the same beliefs and those who are impressionable not those who actually eat meat.
ReplyDeleteThe theme of masculinity and meat really stands out to me. It seems that males come up so often in the discussion of vegetarianism. Meat is seen as a symbol of manhood, especially on the "Hungry Man XXL" page. I don't think there will ever be a hungry man meal without it being overwhelmingly flavored with meat. What really shocks me is that some sort of feminist group made a song associating chauvinism with meat. I can see the correlation between masculinity and meat, but I don't understand how women are oppressed by it. Obviously, this "merry war" has gotten out of control. It especially surprises me that Alicia Silverstone would appealt to men with her nude ad for Veganism. The 1907 stance on vegtarianism has heated up, but also each side of the spectrum has gotten further and further from the center.
ReplyDeleteI do believe the debates concerning meat and vegetarian diets have changed. Past articles present arguments such as the price of meat is too high, you live longer, or the religious aspect. Today, it’s more common to hear a statement backed up with ridiculous statistics, whether they’re true or not. More people are becoming vegetarians and the “merry war” continues to get worse. People argue about whether it is wrong or right and it’s a never-ending battle. You’re always going to have vegetarians trying to end this animal cruelty and better the environment. While at the same time there will always be those meat eaters that are never going to back down or give in to what is being said. Genres and modes I think do play a part in how people actually express their feelings toward the subject. It seems like people have become more passionate about it one way or another and are expressing themselves in a variety of ways.
ReplyDeleteThe debate concerning meat and vegetarianism has changed drastically in the last 100 years or so. Given these articles from the early 1900's about the "merry war" we see that the reasons and arguments that vegetarians use to justify their life choice have changed. At the turn of the 20th Century people were choosing vegetarianism because they argued that it was healthier and provided the vegetarian with a cleaner body. Now vegetarians are talking about animal rights, using compassion for the mistreatment of animals to explain and persuade. However from the texts we can also see that the way vegetarians were viewed has changed little and the masculinity associated with eating meat remains. The hungry man website is a perfect example of the conception that real men, aka hungry men, eat meat, and lots of it. Perhaps this goes back to primal times where men were hunters, the source of meat and women were gatherers, providing berries and vegetables to eat.
ReplyDeleteOne hundred tears ago the idea of vegetarian diets were not common as they are today. I still typically stereotype vegetarians with being mostly women. In the American culture BBQ-ing for whatever the reason tends to be a macho thing. The Alicia Silverstone spot obviosly took a very attractive and well known actress to show that you can be a vegetarian and still be sexy, happy, and fell good at the same time. Our diets today are talked about much more than 1907. It has become commonplace due to the obesity of Americans. I think that vegetarianism has gotten more popular today but there are more people who are obese, so its as if both sided have divided since 1907. As far as being kind to the animals that we eat, this can and should still be accomplished. Unfortunately it has fallen off the way side since the early 1900's because there are many more mouths to feed, and the demand for more meat quicker is definitely an issue that should be addressed.
ReplyDeleteThe figure of speech that comes to mind for our generation is 'sex sells’; this is true when selling vegetarianism. The Alicia Silverstone site and the mp3 of ‘Sexual Politics of Meat’ are examples of how debates have changed and ultimately the context within them. As time goes on, the reasons behind the issue changes along with the ways to express the issue. The “merry war” has escalated and this is shown through advertising of naked celebrities to sell vegetarianism. Let’s forget the supposedly statistical value of going veg and the increase of helping the environment and use what we know does best. Obviously this ad is for those ‘Hungry Men XXL’ but how many of those masculine meat eating men will turn veg because of it? Hopefully, not many, but in the recent past we have witnessed what sex can really sell.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that vegetarians feel a sense of superiority when refraining from meat in the 1907 article as stated they are moral from eating celery. A true opinionated statement back in the early 1900's; correlation does not imply causation. Today science provides factual evidence that we need to consume meat. The argument of veganism today is based upon the rights of animals. The pamphlet tries to convey that animals are our friends and not to be consumed. Some of the pictures from this genre are a bit grotesque. When I had dinner tonight my mouth still watered when I ate my chicken, despite the attempt to veer me away.
ReplyDeleteThe "merry war" has changed drastically from the 1900s to today. Some vegetarians still have the im better than meat eater mentality but their reasonings for not eating meat have changed. They dont just argue over a healthier lifestyle instead today the focus seems to be shifted to animal rights. Like the images in todays assignments were mostly focused on animal rights. As disturbing as the pictures may be though I dont see them gaining too much support. I still ate meat after looking at them and im sure numerous other people in the class did too. And ok so what did Alicia swimming naked in a pool have to do with being vegetarian. The only people I could ever see being swayed by this video would be the junior high mathletes but as soon as mom said dinners ready they would have tossed alicia aside and ate their sloppy joes. Don't get me wrong I loved the girl in clueless but her add proves once again that PETA doesnt use many facts to back up their adds. It used to be that vegetarians were weird and thought to be weak individuals but now PETA makes them seem glamorous and skinny dipping and pretty. My advice to PETA -give it up already naked has been actresses aren't going to get people to stop loving meat.
ReplyDeleteI agree that times have changed when it comes to "the merry war", however I think that its cooling off as time goes by. It seems to me that vegetarianism is more accepted by the youth than by the older people in this country- maybe its the liberal ideas held by the younger crowd, or maybe its just something we're more used to. I think that I probably have a lot more vegetarian friends than my parents did, and yet my children will probably have a lot more than I do.
ReplyDeleteThere is definately a theme of manliness involved that reoccurs throughout time. Initially when reading the title of the 1908 piece from blackboard I got the impression that the article was calling vegitarian males gay. But he was actually pointing out that they are odd. The old man made some references to soups being poisoned by meat that reminded me of this video I watched.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.truveo.com/Ron-White-Vegetarians/id/2119527073
I think that the war is stil going on with the basis being that vegetarians think that everyone should be vegetarians and carnivores think that the vegetarians just don't have any sense. It is more of a fight from the vegetarian side trying to convert more people to their side rather than meat eaters trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
I also definately think that the war has escalated especially with the development of technology and the use of sex appeal. PeTA uses Alicia Silverstone, who is known for being somewhat of a "material girl" in "Clueless" and basically saying that she is sexy because she is vegan. Pushing the point that people that are vegan will be sexier. By using the commercial/video, they can appeal to a larger audience and can use a visual stimulation rather than the 1908 NY Times using strictly vivid descriptive words to create the picture of the vegetarian restaurant. Also, since 1908 there aren't very many people needing to wear furs to keep warm in the winter time. The PeTA website had links to an entire PeTA mall where people could buy fake leather stuff that wouldn't have even been a factor in the early 20th century.
If we travel back in time just a few hundred years, the idea of a vegetarian diet would not be considered in the same way that it is today. In those days, if you were a vegetarian it was because the hunters hadn't made a kill in a week or two, and all you had to eat was grains, nuts, and berries. Moving a long in the time line not eating meat could have possibly meant that you simply didn't have the money to purchase it. So it is clear that the debate and ideas behind vegetarianism has changed greatly. Now days we are more concerned with the ethics of animal treatment and not necessarily about the idea of actually eating animals. Also, vegetarianism has become widely feminized. It is manly to eat meat and these texts show that. The hungry man meal ad is pretty straightforward. Men want to be full, and large hunks of meat is what's gonna do it for 'em. The speech set to music addresses the feminism involved with meat. And even the ad for Alicia Silverstone was geared towards men; the whole thing was based around her sex appeal.
ReplyDeleteThe "Merry War" between meat eaters and non meat eaters is no longer between those two extremes. Rather, it it a matter of targeting those who are usnure about their thoughts on meat. There are die-hard carnivores out there who are never going to change their ways no matter how many PETA enthusiasts come knocking on their doors waving meat is murder signs in their faces. And the PETA enthusiasts doing so aren't giving up either. But instead of targeting the ones who've already made their decision and are set in their ways, the merry war has turned into converting the undecided.
When discussing the "merry war" of meat eaters and vegetarians, there is not much of a battle on the parts of meat eaters. The main argument, from the article and ads seen in class, are in support of vegetarianism. Although, the hungry man and beef commercials support the idea of eating meat, they don't give an argument to PETA's strong position on animal cruelty. The hungry man website has tried to create a symbol of real meat eat meat, and that eat looks like the most unappetizing meat I've seen. There are manly games like pool.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see the change in strategies from vegetarians in 1907 and today. Today, the approach is much more in your face and tries to tug at your morals. Whereas the early articles just tried to understand that someone would NOT eat meat because they wanted to stay healthy. Their approach was much more laid back and uncaring about what went on. The war in 1907 seemed to be much less intense than the "war" is in the 21st century. The addition to different types of media has helped with the strategies of vegetarians and created video clips and music to get there views across to the other side.
It seems to me that as we move further into the future we are always looking for more nutritional and enjoyable diets. Whether it be meat or meatless. We are finding ways to meet our needs no matter what. Vegetarians now days are able to meet their protein needs by eating nuts and beans and a variety of other non-meat products. It is exciting to see how diets are changing. There are diet such as the Atkins that mostly focus on protein and meat type foods as opposed to a straight veggie diet. Basically we are able to eat how we want for whatever reasons whether it be moral or health. With the many resources in today's world it is easy to get information and different sorts of plans that will fit the needs of every individual. This was obviously not the case 100 years ago and it is evident when you look that the various food choices people were making back then.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe debate concerning meat and vegetarian diets has definitely changed from the past. In the past it seemed the main reasons for becoming vegetarian was due to health issues. Now in our day and age it seems as though becoming a vegetarian is the cool thing to do. The Alicia Silverstein add is a prime example of this. What better way to get teenage girls to become vegetarian then to put a beautiful celebrity in a video giving them the idea that if they become vegetarian they can be like her. I believe the whole vegetarian statement is becoming more and more cliché instead of morally justified.
ReplyDeleteI would have to admit the debate over being vegetarian has changed drastically over the years. In the NY Times article, copyrighted 1906, being vegetarian was the sensible thing to do because of the positive results health wise. Basically it was moronic to eat meat. It was all veggies veggies veggies, and eating pie could put you in the hospital (???). Jump to a century later, in 2008 (the Vegan pamphlet), and now being vegetarian has totally new connotations. Not only are we conscious of our health, but now it's the well-being of the animals that are slaughtered for their meat. We should be aware of more than just ourselves these days, apparently.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the "merry war," the Vegan pamphlet shows that it has definitely cooled. Whereas in 1906 they were talking down about pies, in 2008 we now have "vegetarian-conscious" pies and cookies! It has become an easier avenue to become vegetarian because now it isn't all about veggies veggies veggies. Now we have things that physically resemble the look and taste of red meat dishes. And ANOTHER way it has cooled. A century ago, you "get typhoid fever" from eating a steak. It was NO meat for vegetarians. Now we have vegetarians asking to just cut consumption down in half of all meat, to reside to fish and deli meats. Fish KILLED you a century ago apparently, but not now? The debate has definitely softened, yet the pressing matter is still the same: It's healthier, better for the environment, and makes you look cooler (isn't that the chick from Clueless?!)
Debates over vegetarian diets have changed in some ways over the years, but I believe the same debate is still in place. In the 1907 New York Times article, the author makes vegetarianism sound like a bad thing, but still integrates why people are becoming vegetarians. The reasoning behind why people are becoming vegetarians has hardly changed. The author uses a doctor in this article to increase the credibility on what he is saying about becoming a vegetarian. The doctor begins the article by calling a vegetarian diet, a fad. The vegetarian diet these days seems not to be looked at as a fad, but more as a lifestyle choice. By the choice of words, calling the vegetarian diet a fad, the author and the doctor imply that this type of diet is a short lived, ineffective, foolish diet that will never work. 100 plus years later it is still being used, so obviously the doctor was wrong about that one. Although the doctor begins by saying the vegetarianism is not healthy, he goes on to say that he might be medically a good thing to not eat as much meat. This is my impression of how doctors would feel today. They believe that eating too much of anything can be a bad thing. Although the doctor makes this point he still does not say to completely become a vegetarian, but instead to just eat less meat. This would agree with the opinion and argument of most doctors today. The author also makes the point that women are trying to become more lady-like. Even in the early 1900’s, similar to today, it was thought that women were supposed to be tall and slender. Unlike today though, they comment on women not eating enough to leading to poor bone structure, and shrunken shanks. This would most likely not be viewed like this today. To indicate the time period of this writing, the newly developing idea of people being thin is introduced. The difference between this article and a present day article that is written is debatable although I think it is possible to determine. This article is leaning more to the side of not becoming a vegetarian, but still instills why people may become a vegetarian and the possible positive side effects that it may have. This leaves a question in the readers minds about whether vegetarianism is a good or bad thing. On the other hand an article written today seems as if it would almost be to persuade someone to either one side or the other. Those who support vegetarianism would write the reasons why you should become a vegetarian and the benefits gained from this while leaving out the potential downfalls. Those who do not support vegetarianism would be on the opposite side persuading the readers why becoming a vegetarian is a bad thing and all of the potential downfalls all while excluding the potential benefits.
ReplyDeleteThe genre of this article is to introduce a doctor and to make the story seem almost like a news idea, but with the many interjections of the author, the story gets changed around into becoming what the author wants it to be. This creates the article to become more of a debate in my mind as to whether you should become a vegetarian or not, but with the fact that the author makes vegetarians sound almost crazy it is more likely not. If this article was to be written today in the New York Times, I think a much different approach would be taken, possibly even on both sides of vegetarianism. There would probably be more of an attempt to make sure that no one was offended by the article, but rather just to state the debate. The biggest impact on how the author impacts the ideas of the reader is by the mode of transmission used, and this change in transmission from then to now would cause a completely different article to be written.
Debates about vegetarian diets over the years have significantly changed while staying the same in nature. The main argument has and always will be the health issue. Some claim cutting meat out of one's diet is healthy. Others argue that this is an unhealthy practice. Still others argue that it is not whether or not to eat meat but, a matter of moderation. This is the aspect of the debate that has not changed. The dynamic issues of diet are the methods of delivery. One hundred years ago arguments were posted in local newspapers. Today the world has a global network instantly accessible by almost anyone. Another considerable change in the method is the actual substance of the argument. In the past, most of the argument for either side had little factual basis and was mostly a particular person's opinion. Currently, any point made must be backed by factual evidence. The final significant change that has developed over time is the rights of animals. In the early 1900's there was no consideration for animal rights. Today, not only is it the main reason many decide to go vegan, but, there are many very well organized world wide animal rights organizations.
ReplyDeleteHow has the "merry war" described in the NYTimes 1907 article escalated or cooled? How do new genres and modes play a part in the changes?
ReplyDeleteThe debate over eating meat and vegetarian diets has heated greatly, in my opinion. In Butcher's Meat, the thought of eating a vegetarian diet was a radical idea shut down with "facts" (saying that strawberries are poisonous). Some of the later articles, however, recognize the fact that eating meat isn't all that great for you. A few of the articles recommend to readers that adopting a vegetarian lifestyle part of the time, along with eating meat a few days a week is better for them, and the environment. Then, you have groups like PETA and movies like the Meatrix saying how animals rights are important and they use strong rhetoric and graphic images to tell viewers that eating meat is completely wrong. I believe this "war" has plenty of room to increase and am anxious to where it leads.