Numerous animals are mentioned many times throughout this novel. It is clear that Robert- the protagonist- has a connection to animals. He runs about with them as if he is one of them. The animals communicate various messages to the readers. Certain characteristics animals possess which defy human nature help to develop Robert’s character, animals in this novel are displayed to be closely related to Robert, the animals represent values of Robert, and of society today and they are often used by Findley as a symbol of hope amidst devastation.
Furthermore, Suzuki effectively discusses the quality of life for the animals being tested, and the depressing and deprived realities that these helpless animals survive. Suzuki makes valid points throughout his article including his statement, “What gives us the right to exploit other living organisms as we see fit? How do we know that these other creatures do not feel pain or anguish just as we do?”(p.91). Suzuki utilizes pathos to strengthen his argument and attempts to shape the opinion of the public. Is it intelligence that determines the animal’s self-worth and right to live, or is it that animals may possess the same if not identical Neuroanatomy of humans?
Napoleon and Snowball originally strive to fulfil Old Major’s dreams but due to the self centeredness of Napoleon, among others, the tenets of Animalism are systematically undermined throughout the novel. Telephone Conversation by Wole Soyinka ridicules the hypocritical stances of society concerning racism. Similarly to the political cartoon, “Upgrading to cattle class” satirising the racial prejudice that is featured in society where Australians seemingly are more concerned about the treatment of cattle than the situation of Asylum seekers. Animal Farm expresses the nature of humanity through defamiliarisation, uncovering societal flaws through different characters representing different norms of society. Animal farm parodies the events of the Russian Revolution mocks humanity’s morally weak government foundations.
The novel, ‘The Reluctant Fundamentalist’, makes many references to the idea of predator vs prey. Mohsin Hamid often uses animals to describe the other characters in the novel, comparing them in the way they defend or attack others. The antagonist in the novel, the American, is described by the protagonist, Changez, often as an animal, which in turn leaves the American changing from the predator to the prey regularly. Hamid uses metaphors featuring animals to characterize the feeling of predator vs prey. In chapter three, Changez quotes that the American is like ‘an animal that has ventured to far from its liar’ (page 35) Changez mentions this after he has noticed that the American has been glancing around ‘from one point to the next’ (page 35).
The conflicts among the animals and the humans included the defeat of Mr. Jones the head farmer, the bombing of the main farm windmill twice, and the death of Boxer the farm’s trusty cart-horse. The conflicts in the book would be Man vs Man, and Man vs Society. Boxer could have been described as the most sympathetic character in the novel, Boxer symbolized all of the best qualities: dedication, and loyalty. However boxer suffered a major weakness a naïve trust and an inability to recognize corruption. Animal Farm proved the quote because, in order to reach their dreams and paradise, the animals had to encounter death and major destruction around them.
Some believe animals are an unintelligent species and are just savage creature trying to live in this world. In the essay written by Bass, he describes how the hunters and the animals imagine their prey’s movements. This is giving animals the intelligence to think and react to another animal’s movements. This means Bass believes animals are creatures with the ability to think. In the essay “Am I Blue?” Walker talks about how the horse is “like a crazed person.” This happened because the two horses on a farm were separated after bonding.
Grace Cueva Mr.King ERWC October 29, 2014 Los Angeles Times 551 Burning Tree Rd. Fullerton, CA Dear Editor, Jeremy Rifkin declared in his article,” A Change of Heart About Animals” Los Angeles Times, September 1, 2003 that animals are capable of emotions just like any human being is, and is requesting that all people treat animals with a sense of empathy to animals just like you would to any other human being. His ideas are a bit too farfetched and absurd and if you really examine the idea itself it is really badly supported. This stems from the fact that one of the topics that differentiate human beings from animals is their ability to feel regarding the lives of creatures outside of their own kind. Rifkin tries to persuade us by telling us that animals understand and experience the whole idea of mortality by using observation for example,”Elephants will often stand next to their kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks.”(Rifkin, 11) I think that just because animals can feel grief does not mean that we should treat them how we treat other humans.
Animal Cruelty Animal cruelty is the infliction of suffering or harm on animals, for purposes other than self-defense. It can be harm for specific gain, or even just to rid you of responsibility. There are many kinds of animal cruelty. Animal cruelty exists as neglect and abandonment, slaughter house torture, puppy mills, fighting dens, animal testing, fur trapping, and entertainment. Animal cruelty comes in many forms and has many grave consequences.
Dear Editor, In “A Change of Heart About Animals,” Jeremy Rifkin says, “They feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement, and even love - and these findings are changing how we treat them. We should think before we act because it affects the animals the same way it affects us. Beings raised in a well-mannered family, I believe that we should treat everyone and everything the same way we think humans should be treated. Studies have shown that animals are actually smart. For example, the two birds mentioned, Betty and Abel had cognitive abilities.They were able to figure out how to get the food out of a tube with a wire that was provided to them.
What can also be seen is a role reversal where it is the animals that are the master which humans aspire to be, and the Yahoos submissive with their beastly and inhuman qualities. Also present within Gulliver's Travels is the satire of humans portrayed in a negative light, inviting the reader to realise their own vices present in their own society. This invitation of the reader also leads to the different types of readings one may gather from the Fourth Part of Gulliver’s Travels. It is either a 'Hard' or 'Soft' reading, theories suggested by Neil Chudgar. These five points are able to confirm Swift's misanthropic approach to the representation of humans and the virtuous approach to the representation of the Houyhnhnms.