Author: Rachel Fletcher

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rutgers-student-killed-bear-hiking-woods-cops-article-1.1948391

Hi everyone! This link came up on my facebook news feed and I thought that people might find it interesting. A college senior in New Jersey was killed by a bear while hiking. Apparently, this is the first fatal bear attack in the state since 1852! This article reminded me a lot of Treadwell’s death because the person involved willingly went into an area that is known to be filled with bears. Also, authorities immediately killed the bear that they believe is responsible for the boy’s death. Although the article states that the authorities are unsure about what caused this bear attack, it is certainly possible that the bear was provoked. According to other sources, the boy had several pictures of the bear on his camera. This means that he did not immediately take action to get away from the bear, so it is possible that the bear felt threatened by the humans. I was wondering what other people think about the decision by the authorities to immediately kill the bear?

P.S. Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3p0EFtJIn8

This video is titled “A Cat’s Guide to Training Your Human” and I found it by searching the word “cat” on Youtube. However, after watching this video, I learned that there is an entire youtube page dedicated to videos of the same two cats called “Cole and Marmalade.” Although most of the clips only include the cats (there are only two total in the video), a few of the clips also show a male human. The cats appear to be very willing to approach the human, so it likely that the human in the video owns the cats.

The video is a series of clips that is originally introduced as a cat’s explanation of how to get a human to do things in the cat’s favor. However, it seems like the real purpose of the video is to reflect on the “silly” and somewhat humorous things that cats often do. Throughout the video, different captions are displayed on the screen which provide the steps to be used when “training your human”. Following each caption is a corresponding video clip that shows these the scenarios taking place. For example, one caption says “When they clean the litter box, use it immediately afterwards”. This caption is followed by a clip that shows a human emptying a litter box and a cat going into the litter box immediately after. Other captions say “Keep them active. Leave fur.. cat litter… cardboard shreds.. and dead bugs around the home… so the humans feel like they have a purpose.” The clips following these captions show cats making messes and a human cleaning up afterward. Several captions and corresponding video clips similar to these are shown throughout the video. There is also background music in the video that is somewhat silly and is similar to the type of music that is often played in movies when people are trying to be sneaky.

Although this video may have been meant to be humorous and to reach out to other cat owners who can relate to these situations, there are also several parts of this video that correspond with points made by Randy Malamud in The Zoo Spectatorship. In his writing, Malamud writes “One of the pleasures of visiting a zoo is feeding the animals. The act is generous and the pleasure is innocent, although both derive from a base of superiority and power.” This video does not primarily how cats being fed,  it certainly projects similar ideas about superiority and power. Although this video is about cats who think that they hold the power in the household, this “power” is shown in a sarcastic manner that is laughed at by those who view the video. Those who watch this video are reminded that humans are in fact “in charge” of animals whether or not the animal accepts this idea. The sarcasm serves to reinforce the dominance of the human who created this video by pointing out the absurdity of a cat’s imagined power.

Malamud may also argue that this video and other similar videos about animals create a distance between humans and animals.  In Zoo Spectatorship, he discusses the way in which “computers promise ultimate control” because animals on the internet are decontextualized due to their lack of physical presence to the viewers (234). He goes on to discuss the way in which the internet allows humans to view animals without dealing with the negative aspects that would accompany an actual interaction with an animal (ex. “the smell of shit”). This gives humans the ability to pick and choose what aspects of the animal they would like to experience while ignoring other less favorable aspects of the animal. The ability to do this creates a separation between the human and animal because the human’s idea of the animal may become distorted. Although Malamud also discusses positive aspects of computers, these ideas to not always apply in regards to this video. For example, Malamud mentions that computers “distance viewers even further from animals, but compensate with more (and instant) data and knowledge (234). This knowledge may be acquired through educational animal videos, but most Youtube videos including “A Cat’s Guide to Training Your Human” are for pure entertainment and lack any educational information.

Although the creator of this video most likely took the time to create the video because he loves and is amused by his cats, Randy Malamud would most likely have several problems with it. Several aspects of “A Cat’s Guide to Training Your Human” correspond with Malamud’s discussions about human-animal power relationships and the separations between humans and animals. This video and many other videos on Youtube may simply be meant to be humorous. However, these videos may have negative consequences on the relationship between humans and animals.

Malamud, Randy. Zoo Spectatorship. New York: New York University Press, 1998. Print.

My image is from a Honey Nut Cheerios cereal box. The animal on the box is a cartoon honey bee and he is spreading honey on top of cereal in a bowl. This image of the bee is certainly unrealistic because real bees look nothing like this. This bee is very anthropomorphized because it has a smile, hands and a large head and is even wearing clothing. This image does not show this animal in its natural habitat and a bee would never actually be able to perform actions like it is shown doing on this box. Also, this bee is depicted as an extremely happy animal that enjoys spreading honey on cereal.

I think one of the common assumptions about food animals is that food animals are raised naturally and produce products in a way that is similar to the way that they produce products in nature, away from human contact. However, as discussed in Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, this assumption is completely incorrect. In this book, Foer discusses the many modifications that are implemented in order to keep animals as productive as possible. Although I am unsure of the changes that are established in the lives of bees to create a larger amount of honey production, after reading Foer’s book, I am curious about the steps that are taken to create maximum efficiency. One example of this that I am aware of is that bees that are used to produce honey for profit are often raised in boxes rather than traditional hives. This is similar to Foer’s discussion about factory farms where animals are raised in environments that are very different than the environment that they are meant to live in.

Although many people may think of family farms or wild bees when they think of these products, Foer mentions in his book that 99% of meat now comes from factory farms. It is likely that a large amount of honey production is also produced in similar factory-like settings. It is possible that many people are unaware of the extent of factory farming because of advertising that shows animals in unusually good states. This type of advertising can be described by one of the words that Foer discusses in the “Words/Meaning” chapter: “bullshit”. He defines this word as “Misleading or false language and statement.” Although this particular image does not use any false language, it portrays a false message. I believe that Foer would say that this image and other food advertisements similar to it are used to help the consumer think about positive, happy images of the animals so that they focus less on the reality of the situation such as factory farming and harsh treatment of animals.

As in many images that we have discussed in class, this image also provides an example of Berger’s discussion of the reduction of animals for the benefit of humans. The animal is reduced by humans because this animal’s life is probably extremely unnatural and the animal is used purely for its ability to make a product that humans want. In this case, the bee is used for its honey without any concern for the bee as an individual. Despite this poor treatment by humans, a falsified image of a happy bee is used for advertising as another way for humans to benefit from this animal. This makes it seem as if humans will use animals in any way as long as they can gain something.

Sources:

Berger, John. “Why Look at Animals?” About Looking. New York: Pantheon, 1980. 3-28. Print.

Foer, Jonathan Safran. Eating Animals. New York: Little, Brown, 2009. Print.