Recent orders
Positive and Negative Effects of History in Film and Book of Amistad
Name:
Professor
Course:
Date:
Positive and Negative Effects of History in Film and Book of Amistad
The film and the book by Jones show how African blacks, who got seized by slave traders, earned their liberty and returned to their homeland. The story revolves around Cuba, America, and Spain. It talks about an event in 1849 that involved Amistad, Spanish slave ship, which got used in the transfer of slaves to the Caribbean. The African slaves revolted against their captors and they ended up killing all except three, the cabin boy, and the two owners of the slaves. The commandeered the ship and forced one of their captors to lead them to their homeland, Sierra Leone, Africa. The captain tricked them and change directed in the night. They finally found themselves in Long Island, American Coast. The slave ship belonged to Spain and when words reached Queen Isabella in Spain of the whereabouts of one of their ships, she requested for the ship and the slaves. A controversy boiled over the fate of the slaves. Two people on board claimed that the slaves belonged to them. According to Spain and America, slave traded had become illegal. While in Connecticut, the slaves got arrested. President John Quincy Adams was in favor of the slaves and called for their release. The judge of U.S Supreme Court, who presided over the cases, freed the slaves and found the claimants guilty of illegal trade. The slaves got freedom to stay in America or return home.
History has the option of being taught using textbooks in the classroom or showing movies on the various books used for studying history. Showing movies is very important because it helps students learn and keep factual information in textbooks that associate with those movies (Bingham 78). Information in the textbook must have consistent with that shown in the movie. However, some movies have episodes or lines different from those that the book they are based on hash. Research shows that watching a film related to a certain textbook, increases students recall of various events by about 50% in comparison with reading the text alone. On the contrary, when the information presented in a film contradict with that present in its relative book, people get tempted to recall the misinformation in the movie (Osagie 4). The power of movies is that they have stronger retention capacity than that of textbooks. Similarly, the recall of misinformation portrayed in the movie still has a 50% capacity of the time. In order to supplement or enhance educational practice, teachers have the responsibility of guarding students against the negative effects of movies that portray contradicting information from those of their relative books. Research shows that people still get subjected to misinformation even if they get briefed about it before watching the movie. However, when warnings get specified about particular inaccuracies get shown before watching the film, the effect of misinformation end.
Films increases interest and learning in a classroom environment. Teachers and other stakeholders in learning must know that students are susceptible to inaccurate information even if the right information is present in the text . These have problems for the normal educational practices of utilizing movies as a teaching aid. The public also faces these problems as they consume popular movies or films on history. Good films add interest in history and have a lot of information which is accurate. Film producers usually compromise on some facts in the text so that the movie presents a more entertaining story than that in the text. This is what has subjected many movies to inaccuracies as learners are keener on the content of the movie and not the entertaining part. The film Amistad and its corresponding textbook, Mutiny on The Spanish Ship Amistad, show incongruence. The film displays some inaccuracies that misrepresent the textbook. One instance of misinformation presents itself when the film shows Cinque, the leading protagonist, sitting in shackles before U.S Supreme Court as the trial progressed. According to the textbook, Cinque was in prison when the trial was going on. On a general point of view, most information present in the movie and the textbook is similar. In fact, for a non-critical reader, it is difficult to notice the difference any misinformation present in the movie. In all, the movie clearly represents the textbook.
The film revolves between mushy Hollywood platitudes and stoic political correctness. The movie has too much history in it. The much history in the film makes the movie lack a strong flow. The diffuse in nature as it divides its powers among various aspects. It displays the pain and queer experiences that the captives faced during their struggle for liberty under captors (Jones 78). It also brings into effect the U.S presidential elections that were around the corner and legal representatives who argued about the destiny of the 53 African slaves. History is not more diffuse and complex than movies. People have the liberty of choosing characters in their own capacities. For instance, a character like Lewis Tappan gets picked and followed for his best efforts to bring an end to slavery. Some pro-slavery rowdies ransacked his house in New York and burned in furniture. He had the heart of goodness and justice for all. The spirit of liberty ran in his blood.
The correctness of the courts that administered the ruling for the African captives is questionable in the minds of many pro-slavery people (Davis 21). Some people say that there are no laws in America that try foreigners for their crime. The crime depicted in the movies was that of killing the captors who boarded the slave ship headed for the Caribbean. Some propose that the court should have proposed a sale of the slaves based on their market values. Others feel that New York, and not Connecticut, was the best place for the trial (Sanello 34).
The book and the film for sure have their own advantages and disadvantages as media for propagating knowledge. Films have the inherent ability of developing interest in students for the story. Most filmmakers add or subtract some content from the original sources or documents that movies base on to meet their aims. Less interesting films are less watched and hence their markets are poor. Filmmakers try their best so that they avoid problems. There are things that make movies eye-catching and endearing (York 9). This involved episodes full of suspense and tension. For them to meet such effects in their movies, filmmakers have to do away with part or add to a section of the story. In so doing, accuracy gets compromised. The realistic representation of the original document is not met. This makes movies unreliable sometimes when looking for information on certain stories. Conversely, books are good sources of information on about particular historical facts. Textbooks are very reliable sources because once published, it is difficult to doctor their content (Morris 34). Moreover, they pass through reviews for accuracy and relevance. Moreover, books are usually the first source of information on certain topics because they get written by those who experienced the facts. Unlike books, movies get information from textbooks, translate and produce similar information through acting. During the process of translation, the original information gets vulnerable to change, and hence a change of meaning. The best source of information on history is books or other recorded documents. Books are also good, but they sometimes mislead students. Movies serve as teaching aids in educational institutions. Looking at the book and the film on which Amistad get based, the book is the original source while the movie derived its content from the book. The film Amistad represents the book well, but there are instances that the books misinform the moviegoer. Warning people against misinformation present in particular sections is very important so that wrong indoctrination of the people ceases.
Another important aspect of the movie or the film Amistad is how it treats slave trade. Slave trade is one aspect of history that the movie displays. Slave trade thrived in the olden days. Slaves from Africa got traded for other products. The transatlantic trade involved sale Africa, US, and Europe. Slaves were taken to plants to work as laborers. Most of those firms were plantations. In the movie and text, Amistad, African slaves got sold to a Spaniard in Cuba and they board a ship to the Caribbean. The 53 Africans on board revolted against their captors on their way to the Caribbean (Bingham 56). They killed all their captors except three. They forced the remaining chapters to lead them to Africa, their homeland. This is a show of how worse slavery was. Slavery was a very bad act during the Trans-Atlantic trade. The African slaves in Amistad serve to display slavery in a way that suggests that it is worse than death. The Africans killed their captors just in search for freedom. Moreover, when the slave ship reached the shore of U.S, some people reacted differently towards slave trade. Some of the residents of Connecticut expected nothing but a sale of the slaves so that they could get a share. Many sharp reactions came from the government of Spain and U.S. Slave trade was illegal. The government of Spain through Queen Isabella, requested a transfer of the slaves and Amistad to Spain. She claimed that the slaves belonged to Spain. Government of U.S said that the slaves could not go to Spain because the slave trade was long banned. President of U.S supported the pleas made by the slaves. He proposed for their release. This was a campaign gimmick for the president. The judge of the U.S Supreme Court, who ruled the case, ruled in the favor of the slaves. This was a show of the end of slave trade in America.
One disadvantage of the movie is that there exist unjustified aspects that it propagates. Murder is very bad. The slaves got charged through partial application of the law. The slaves murdered many captors but went unpunished (Zafiris 89). This is the worst aspect of the movie. The law that got used to punish the two owners of the slave should also apply to the captives. Since the slaves murdered, the government should have charged them with murder. This part of the film displays double standards of the American law.
Given the above two sources of information, as a teacher one should embrace both during teaching. They both add value to education in different ways. For better and better understanding, the film is used as an educational aid. This helps students who had difficulties with class notes understand what was not clear (Schwartz 10). The textbook is the first source of information. This is because it has all the relevant facts that learning the various topics in its need. It has the option of being referenced easily because students carry them anywhere. Movies are only important in supplementing the textbooks. However, movies may misrepresent the original information. Filmmakers usually add or remove some parts of the original information when they are looking for ways that make their movies interesting. Films are also good sources of information but they should warn viewers against any view or aspect of it that is incorrect during their starts.
From the above discussion, it is obvious that books and film make good sources of information. They form the basis of history. Amistad is one good representation of a book and a film that relate. However, the film has some of its parts different from those in the book. This makes it inaccurate. These parts need specification during the start of the movie so that viewers get the correct information. The main advantage of movies is that people have a long retention capacity than those of textbooks. In all, books and films are essential for learning.
Works Cited
Bingham, Dennis. Whose Lives Are They Anyway?: The Biopic As Contemporary Film Genre.
New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 2010. Internet resource.
Davis, Natalie Z. Slaves on Screen: Film and Historical Vision. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
Univ. Press, 2000. Print
Morris, Nigel. The Cinema of Steven Spielberg: Empire of Light. London: Wallflower, 2007.
Print.
Osagie, Iyunolu F. The Amistad Revolt: Memory, Slavery, and the Politics of Identity in the
United States and Sierra Leone. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2000. Internet resource.
Sanello, Frank. Spielberg: The Man, the Movies, the Mythology. Lanham, Md: Taylor Trade Pub,
2002. Print.
Schwartz, Barry. Abraham Lincoln in the Post-Heroic Era: History and Memory in Late
Twentieth-Century America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. Internet resource.
York, Neil L. Fiction As Fact: The Horse Soldiers and Popular Memory. Kent, Ohio: Kent State
University Press, 2001. Print.
Zafiris, Anna. The Representation of African Americans in Steven Spielberg’s ‘amistad’.
München: GRIN Verlag, 2010. Internet resource.
Jones, Howard. Mutiny on the Amistad: The Saga of a Slave Revolt and its
Impact on American Abolition, Law and Diplomacy. Oxford University Press,1997.
some sections
including palms
The ethics of what we eat
Author
Tutor
Course
Date
Introduction
The importance of food sufficiency in any country cannot be gainsaid as far as the health of the citizens is concerned. It is widely recognized that the ability of people to create wealth is highly dependent on their health. In the recent times, animal products have occupied a large part of the people’s diets. As much as many people enjoy animal products, few people pay any attention to the ways in which the products have been produced. This is especially as pertaining to the rearing of animals. These are some of the concerns that Peter Singer and Jim Mason address in the book, “The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter”. This book balances and integrates the concerns as to the lives of the animals with the need to think, as well as live in planetary harmony with the ecological systems. In recognition of the fact that the consumers drive the market, Singer and Mason call unto people to make dietary adjustments. The book counsels vegetarianism, but acknowledges that many people may find going vegan too large a step (Singer and Mason, 279). In essence, Singer and Mason appeal to people that they become conscientious omnivores who will be ready to support sustainable, humane, as well as marketable family farms. Singer and Mason, therefore, provoke the continuing debate pertaining to animal welfare in factory farms.
Factory farming refers to the practice of raising numerous animals in high density and close confinement units with the aim of producing eggs, milk and meat in the cheapest, most efficient, as well as fasted possible way for human consumption. The industrial operations are, in essence, corporate agribusiness institutions that are also known as CAFOs an acronym for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. In the United States, more than ten billion animals are bred and killed every year for food. These include 9 billion chickens, 100 million pigs, 250 million turkeys, and 35 million cows (D’Silva, 56). It is noteworthy that, a large number of these animals are not bred in small family farms rather they are raised in vast agricultural facilities known as factory farms. Recent times have seen a decrease or reduction in the number of animal farms in the United States. However, this does not mean that less animal products are being consumed than in the past (D’Silva, 67). Rather, it means that less space is used to rear and bred these animals. Research shows that today, one worker today supplies over 90 consumers with meat products. The principal or key four food companies in United States produce 73% of sheep, 81% of cows, 50% of Chicken and 57% of pigs. Factory farming started in 1920 after vitamin A and D were discovered. When these vitamins were blended with animal feed, the farm animals were able to grow without exercise or sunlight (D’Silva, 78). In essence, this allowed for more efficient production of animals throughout the year. The population growth since 1920s led to a tremendous increase in meat eating, which consequently led to widespread factory farming to the point of dominating the meat production industry. It is worth noting that the main idea behind factory farming, whereby it operates under the notion that is it less costly to breed animals in confined units using assembly-line techniques than managing them in open and large areas. The increased competition in the meat industry has given the farmers an incentive to incorporate the most cost-effective techniques of raising their animals, all in an effort to stay in business (D’Silva, 99). In cutting the cost of production, factory farming has proved to be notoriously neglectful of the welfare of animals, especially as far as chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows are concerned. This not only endangers the health of the consumers but is also detrimental to the lives of the animals in various ways.
Chicken in a crowded factory farm
Source: http://www.belsandia.com/factory-farming.html
First, it is worth noting that the tightly confined units hold an excessive number of farm animals. These units are mostly metal buildings that do not allow any access to fresh air, sunlight or vegetation. In addition, the animals are prevented from carrying out their normal behaviors such as moving around. More often than not, the animal farms hold such a large number of animals to such an extent that they are unable to turn around so as to satisfy natural inclinations pertaining to self-grooming. The confinement of animals in such restricted areas tends to encourage cannibalism in chickens, turkeys and even pigs. More often than not, the farmers clip the beaks of poultry to reduce their cannibalism (Nagaraja and Chengappa, 47).
In addition, such restricted areas have been seen to allow the rapid spread of diseases and pathogens, thanks to the congestion and the unsanitary living conditions. These dense and confined environments are ideal breeding grounds for contagious diseases and lethal viruses. It is noteworthy that the virus spreads easily and faces little or no resistance, thanks to the gene-manipulated uniformity that the confined animals incorporate. In most cases, the factory farms undergo standardization so as to enhance efficiency. Monoculture of feed crops and animals are established to be unified via gene manipulation so as to assist in the production of consistent yield every year (Nagaraja and Chengappa, 53). This is because low variety and diversity of the agricultural products enhances the ease of regulation and management of food quality. In addition, the confined factory farm animals usually lie or stand on their own manure, or even next to sick or dead animals. These animals may be having largely untreated wounds since the farmers consider veterinary care as an extra and unnecessary cost for the animals.
Another concern about factory farming pertains to the feeds that these animals ingest. It is worth noting that genetic engineering, growth hormones, as well as other breeding programs are incorporated in an effort to bring consistent and desirable animal anatomies, as well as enhance the speed of growth of the animals (Carnell, 67). Unfortunately, the potent chemical cocktail is known to fatten only the parts for which the consumers pay. In addition, vast amounts of pesticides and antibiotics are used in fighting the multiplication of bacteria and disease-causing pathogens. This is especially because the farm animals get sick often, thanks to the humidity and dirt in their pens, as well as the crowded conditions (Carnell, 89). The farm animal feed is, with no doubt, a far cry from the animal feed to which such animals would naturally be entitled. This feed incorporates enormous amounts of rich soy and corn, animal waste, plastics, metals, chemicals, drugs, as well as rendered parts or components of other animals, which may or may not be of the same species. These feeds are known to cause liver and digestive problems to the animals, which is essentially a torturous affair. It is also worth noting that as much as the high-yield soy and corn come at a low price, they have low nutritional value. The remains of other animals and antibiotics, as well as hormones, are responsible for the quick fattening up of animals for the market. Antibiotics are used just to sustain the animals before they are butchered, while hormones are injected to the animals to bring them to market size. However, these hormones and antibiotics are known to weaken the immune system of animals to disease-causing pathogens thereby affecting their capacity to fight bacteria (Johnson, 68). It is worth noting that these chemicals are consequently transferred to the bodies of consumers, and incorporates the same effects. Carcass meal has also been acknowledged as one of the key contributors to the spread of the mad cow disease. This is because diseased animals are kept in the food chain when their remains are fed to other cows or animals. It is worth noting that the mad cow disease poses severe danger to human beings when they ingest the meat of infected animals.
On the same note, the immune system of the animals is extremely weakened by overbreeding. This is also propelled by the growth hormones that propel the creation of weakened bodies of the animals. This amounts to animal cruelty especially because the legs of the animals are unable to support or carry the unnatural heavy weight of the animals’ upper bodies.
In addition, one cannot ignore the ammonia levels to which the factory farm animals are exposed. It is noteworthy that the level of ammonia in factory farms is not supposed to go beyond 35 parts per million (ppm), so that workers can spend fifteen minutes in the animal pen without the threat of lung problems. However, research shows that the levels of ammonia in factory farms are, more often than not, twice the set amount. As much as the studies have mainly concentrated on the effects of these levels of ammonia on the workers, it goes without saying that the animals are also affected (Arson and Animal Welfare Institute, 34). The high amounts of toxic gases and ammonia in the animals houses often causes severe respiratory diseases, especially because the animals spends a long time in such environment without the privilege of ever breathing fresh air. It is noteworthy that this cruelty to animals causes enormous mortality rates for chickens. Unfortunately, farm industry calculations have deemed it essential to ignore the mortality and bred the biggest birds (Arson and Animal Welfare Institute, 44). On the same note, 70 percent of pigs in factory farms suffer from pneumonia by the time they get to the slaughterhouse. In fact, more than 25 percent of pigs are said to suffer from mange, thanks to the filthy living conditions. Unfortunately, many farmers would deem it, not only inappropriate and unnecessary to uplift the living conditions of the animals but also to provide them with veterinary care, as such a thing would eat into their profits. In essence, most animals are left by themselves without any treatment when they are sick.
Cow infected with mastitis as a result of hormones
Source: HYPERLINK “http://www.belsandia.com/factory-farming.html” http://www.belsandia.com/factory-farming.html
Evidently, factory farming is extremely harmful to the comfort of the animals. As much as the farmers are concerned with the profit, it is imperative that they are concerned about the animals’ welfare. Giving them conducive environments to live in, appropriate feeds, and enough space to enhance their comfort would be imperative (Herscovici, 89). With the above points in mind, it becomes apparent why Singer and Mason are asking people to go slow on meat and animal products, and turn to vegetables for their food. Unfortunately, such calls are likely to go unheeded or produce minimal results. Many consumers are unwilling to give up meat products for vegetables.
In conclusion, factory farming has come in handy as one of the most appropriate ways for attaining food sufficiency in the United States. Many people have always had a deep liking for animal products. However, few people pay attention or are concerned as to the origin of the animal products. Unfortunately, most of these animals are bred in factory farms, where they undergo extreme torture before they reach the market. They are confined in small spaces where they do not have space to turn, which affects their growth. In addition, they are fed with cheap and iron-rich feeds that also incorporate drugs and plastics. These feeds weaken the immunity of the animals. Moreover, the crowding of animals in small pens exposes them to high levels of toxic gases such as ammonia. Research shows that these gases cause the death of numerous chickens in the United States (Nagaraja and Chengappa, 67). In addition, a vast number of pigs suffer from relentless liver and lungs conditions by the time they face the butcher, thanks to these gases. Unfortunately, many farmers would be unwilling to uplift the standards of these animals or even treat them for the ailments since this would have a bearing on their profitability.
Works cited
Singer, Peter and Mason, Jim. The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. New York: Rodale Books. 2007. Print
D’Silva, Joyce. “Faster, Cheaper, Sicker,” New Scientist, 2003. Print
T. G. Nagaraja and M. M. Chengappa, “Liver Abscessed in Feedlot Cattle: A Review,” Journal of Animal Science, 1998
Johnson, Andrew. Factory farming. New York: B. Blackwell, 1991. Print
Carnell, Paul. Alternatives to factory farming. New York: Earth Resources Research, 1983. Print
Herscovici, Alan. Second nature: the animal-rights controversy. New York: CBC Enterprises/Les Entreprises Radio-Canada, 1985
Carson, Rachel and Animal Welfare Institute. Factory farming: the experiment that failed : a compilation of articles and photographs. New York: Animal Welfare Institute, 1987
(Herscovici) (Carnell) (Johnson) (Nagaraja and Chengappa) (D’Silva)