The Impact Lobsters Have on the "Islanders"


       Lobstering is a way of life. It is not only a crustacean, but it is a source of income, a hobby's

target, and a meal that brings families together. Residents on Isle au Haut rely on lobstering as a job

and income to support their family. These few individual put up with an island that has very little in

terms of entertainment and activities just so that they can lobster. Linda Greenwall, author of "The

Lobster Chronicles," describes the two seasons that the island considers, "... the calendar year can be

best described as a two-season system: the lobster season and the off-season." This depiction of the

calendar year truly shows what is important in the islanders' eyes and in this case it is lobster. Isle au

Haut would not be inhabited or "put up with" if the lobstering gig were to go out of business. If

individuals considered the inhumane and cruelty aspects of consuming a lobster and discontinued

 their consumption, the "islanders" would serve little purpose. Many may not even stumble when

weighing out which is more important, the "humane" technique to cook a lobster or the success and

wellbeing of hundreds of families up and down the East Coast. An animal is an animal; they are

created to drive the ecosystem and keep the world a healthy place for humans to survive.

     
                                               

                                                                      David Foster Wallace's  Essay Structure

      David Foster Wallace, author of the essay titled "Consider the Lobster," writes about the ethical dilemma that cooking a lobster alive presents to the consumers. He is a popular journalist, assigned by the food and travel magazine "Gourmet," to write an article on the annual Maine Lobster Festival. He begins this essay by describing the Festival and his assignment, neither of which he discussed thoroughly. Secondly, he writes about the etymology and taxonomy of lobsters. He tells the readers that lobsters are part of the marine crustacean family Homariadae and are of the class Crustacea. By naming the lobsters scientifically. he gives ten a more meaningful identity. Next, he informs the readers of the history of lobster consumption. Apparently, it was not until after the 1800s that lobsters were considered a delicacy. Before then, it was considered cruel to feed them to prisoners more than once a week. Wallace soon transitions to talk about the preparation of the lobster, whether it be boiling, baking, steamed, or grilled. It is now that Wallace introduces the topic and question of suffering. By breaking down the lobster's anatomy and physiology, Wallace is able to make the readers feel terrible for doing such inhumane tasks. Wallace takes the pain away from the sciences and into the realm of philosophy. He says that although lobsters do not have a cerebral cortex, they still may feel pain. Pain is mental, and we are only able to gauge our own pain- it is purely subjective. Lobsters also suffer; they have an awareness of pain as unpleasant and they fear death. Wallace does not reach a final conclusion but instead projects the question directly to readers, asking them, “Do you think much about the moral status and suffering of the animals [that you eat]? If you do, what ethical convictions have you worked out that permit you not just to eat but to savor and enjoy flesh-based viands?”

Alisha Starbird
English 110- Section U
Professor Owens
                 
                                                                   A Time and Place
                                                             
   Black talk is a form of the English language with thrown in energetic phrases with boundless variety and somewhat disorder. It is fun variation of the language, sparking with wordplays and code games. With that being considered, black talk is used heavily in commercials and ads, capturing the attention of both the young and the old.
   It all started with hip-hop. In 1989 MTV started airing black rappers, aspiring young viewers to be cool like the rappers and promoting hip-hop-ish vernacular in the market. In the marketing world, black vernacular became extremely valuable and the most efficient way to advertise. To the young viewers, the hip back man represented the next level of cool, a level that they wanted to achieve as well. Large companies such as Sprite began to feed into the new hip-hop culture and were able to advertise their product in a way that mostly white kids felt that Sprite understood that they were tired of other commercials telling them what was cool.
   Another marketing achievement began when companies started abusing the alphabet. It was a quick way to make young people believe that they are cool and hip. Advertisers would do things like add a "Z" to the end of a word or replace a single "X" rather than spelling it out as "ex." Using one letter in marketing was a way to make a company seem fun, diverse, and hip-hop-ish.
   Black talk phrases were introduced in the advertising and marketing world as well. Phrases like "whaaazzzaahhh?!" and "cool" allowed individuals such as sports-enthusiasts to express their manliness and make them seem more culturally diverse. Black talk, in advertising cases, is more than acceptable, it is encouraged. Using black talk expressions captures attention and screams "cool" or "hip." It relates to todays young culture and makes them feel understood.
   Unlike in commercials and advertisements, Black English is not deemed correct in certain environments such as education institutions. A part of being educated is understanding and being able to speak English correctly; standardized English, that is. Standardized, or proper English has specific rules, grammar, and spellings- most of which originated from political and military powers. The more affluent individuals were able to assert authority culturally by deciding what the standard language was, thus changing the culture of others. If one does not adapt and display the knowledge of proper English then they are usually looked down upon as ignorant. This makes little sense to me, understanding that 1% of the population controls 99% of the money. With this being said, most of the population is poor or in the working class, where a very small number of them are affluent. Why does the smallest population get to decide what is standard and what is viewed as ignorant? Amiri Baraka is able to answer my questions by writing that in order to change the standard, one must become and/or acquire the standard.