All posts by wn3

Reflection

The Faults of Speciesism in “District 9”

Leave a comment

District 9 was disturbing in a lot of ways because there were so many parallels between what happened in the movie and the apartheid, or any time when a certain group was oppressed in some way. The prawns are treated as subhuman, even though they are far more technologically advanced than the humans are in the film. But, even though black people are higher in social status compared to the prawns, they’re still portrayed negatively. Black people sell meat to the prawns and they believe that eating the prawns’ body parts will give them some alien power. More interestingly though, is the irony in which Wikus, the character who transforms into a prawn himself, becomes more humane the less human he is. In the beginning he used extreme profanity when addressing the prawns and treated them like pests. When he begins the transformation, he even demands that Christopher help him even though he stole Christopher’s canister in the first place. As the film goes on, however, Wikus uses the mechanized suit not only to save himself and Christopher, but volunteers to stay behind and fight Venter so Christopher and his son can escape. A good portion of the film is spent trying to retrieve the canister back to activate the mothership which has a cure for Wikus – only for Wikus to sacrifice himself at the end. It is almost as if the film is making a commentary on the idea of humanism and the irony that those considered subhuman (whether it be blacks, Asians, Jews, etc and the aliens themselves) may be more humane than those who fight so hard to keep non-humans out (whites in this film). The concept of speciesism is critiqued here as it is the humans, who have no moral character. They’re the ones who put the prawns into District 9 and they’re most likely the ones who caused the unrest that came with the prawns arrival. The “other” species, the prawns, are actually the ones who are the most human.

–Julia

Reflection, Uncategorized

Gender Relativity in “The Cure”

Leave a comment

We talked a lot about oppression – especially of Baby – in “The Cure” during class. However, I want to discuss the gender dynamic Kamani explores in the work. It seems pretty obvious that Baby lives in a highly patriarchal society, and that Dr. Doctor is a prime example of the power men have. First and foremost, Dr. Doctor sexually abuses Baby under the guise of medicine. Medicine gives Dr. Doctor an uninhibited authority that allows him to do such things – even  Baby’s mother, who is supposed to be her guardian, turns a blind eye to what Dr. Doctor does as he “extracts Baby’s bodily fluids” to cure her tallness. However, the gender dynamic becomes more interesting because Kamani seems to intentionally draw parallels between Dr. Doctor’s and Baby’s appearances. They are both tall and thin. However, Dr. Doctor’s tallness is an asset as it gives him authority as a doctor as he towers over all the other characters in the short story. Baby, on the other hand, is seen as “demonic” and deformed because of her tallness. Men and women in society are clearly held up to different standards and Baby’s tallness becomes the very thing that alienates her from society. There’s nothing physically unsound with Baby, but society treats her as if there is because she towers over others where she should be shorter than them. Not only are women expected to be socially inferior, but they are also expected to be physically shorter as well. I thought it was really interesting how Kamani weaved this into the story because it gives us a visualization of just how differently men and women are viewed.

Exercise, Uncategorized

Development of Pharmaceuticals in the 20th Century

Leave a comment

In 1900 the three main causes of death in the US were pneumonia, tuberculosis, and diarrhea. In 2000, the odds of dying from any one of these was 1 in 25 but only pneumonia remains in the list of the top 10 causes of death today. This can be attributed to the rise of better sanitation and vaccination techniques but the development of drugs also had a major role.

Pharmaceuticals began primarily with apothecary shops in the 19th century but a few preliminary drugs were discovered such as epinephrine, nor epinephrine, and barbiturates. In the post WWII period, several other antibiotics were produced and vaccines made for measles, rubella and mumps. Antihypertensive drugs and oral contraceptives were made as well. The Kefauver-Harris Amendment was passed in 1962 which enhanced drug regulation and forces manufacturers to prove that it was effective before a new drug went on market after thalidomide was shown to cause widespread birth defects in Europe. In the late 20th century statins such as simvastatin became a major development as they lowered cholesterol levels and reduced heart disease.

Overall the cost of the drug industry is extremely high. Industry wide research and investment cost $65.3 billion in 2009. It was also estimated that in 2003,  the cost for discovering, developing and launching a new drug over a 5 year period is $1.3 billion. However by 2010, development costs range from $4 billion to $11 billion per drug.

–Julia Ng

Uncategorized

Is Gojira Really Anti-American?

Leave a comment

I know that we touched on this a little bit during our discussion after Gojira on Thursday but I wanted to elaborate on Gojira as an anti-American work. I wouldn’t say that Gojira is anti-American but rather anti-nuclear. It’s true that the US dropped the nuclear bomb and it caused Japan a great deal of turmoil given that the radiation effects persisted several years after the bomb was dropped. But Japan would have gone through that regardless of whether the US dropped it or any other world power.  It was only a coincidence that the US happened to be the one to drop the bomb. Gojira seems to be a major symbol for nuclear weapons in the film. It comes to destroy Tokyo much like a nuclear bomb would as Gojira emits an atomic breath that melts buildings, causes fires and destroys the city landscape. The oxygen destroyer becomes a new nuclear bomb considering the potential for mass destruction in the world’s oceans if other countries had access to it. Most of the film focuses on how the Japanese attempt to defeat Gojira. I think the film tries to portray the negative effects of the nuclear bomb in a way that allows its viewers to feel a little bit of what the Japanese felt after the bomb. It could be read as anti-American – because the Americans were the ones who dropped the bomb, released the radiation and thus allowed Gojira to become as strong as it did – but I think there’s a lot more to the film than that.

–Julia Ng

Reflection

“The Dead” vs. “The Charge of the Light Brigade”

Leave a comment

One of the main differences between “The Dead” and “The Charge of the Light Brigade” is that Tennyson’s poem glorifies war whereas Brooke doesn’t necessarily do that as much in his poem. Tennyson writes about the Battle of Balaclava in 1854 which is regarded as an instance of military incompetence. However, the only time he touches on that is in line 12 when he writes, “some one had blunder’d:” In actuality Tennyson paints a pretty horrific picture of the battlefield by using phrases such as the “valley of Death” (7), “the mouth of Hell” (24), and the “jaws of Death” (25). He also utilizes anaphora of certain words like “cannon” and “flash’d” to demonstrate just how surrounded the light brigade was by the weapons. By doing this he’s emphasizing the bravery and courage of the soldiers for charging into this environment, despite the mistake their commander made earlier. Tennyson’s poem glorifies and justifies war where there was military inefficiency and human loss.

“The Dead”, on the other hand, focuses much more on the individual soldiers and the loss of the lives they had to live. Brooke acknowledges the inevitability of death since the poem going from the morning dusk to the night at the end seems to symbolize the progression of life. However, Brooke emphasizes the soldiers’ innocence as he describes them has having “hearts were women of human joys and cares” (1), and leaving an “unbroken glory, a gathered radiance” (13). He also doesn’t indict war nor does he glorify it as Tennyson does. Although he acknowledges the sadness that comes with war and death, he also sees beauty during that time with the “waters blown by changing winds to laughter/And lit by the rich skies, all day” (9-10). After reading the two poems I don’t think that one necessarily depicts war better than the other. They both represent different sides of war and different opinions towards war in different time periods. As we discussed in class, “The Dead” was written around WWI where there were more casualties and more civilians experienced the pain of losing a family member – who wasn’t necessarily groomed to have a military career – to war, so it explains the more humanistic views towards war. Tennyson’s poem, on the other hand, was written during a time when there weren’t so many casualties, the soldiers were more or less aristocratic and the wars not as major.

-Julia