An Article About Appetites

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Giang Ngo

Lauren Sakovich

English 100: Freshman Composition

An Article about Appetites

In most Asian countries, especially in developing countries such as Vietnam, people consider eating wild animals as an ordinary custom. In his article "Despite increasing prosperity, Vietnam’s appetites remain unique", Joel Brinkley observes that the Vietnamese are meat-eaters who do not leave any kinds of animals untouched. He remarks that wild animals in Vietnam are nowhere to be seen because the natives have consumed all of them. In a specific case, he mentions the Vietnamese’s love for dog meat, as they believe eating dog will bring them good luck. In the end, he quoted a Western blogger’s words, thus stating his main point, that the action is "the most gruesome thing I have ever seen." Although his argument is sensible and emotionally appealing to some extent, he still makes some pretty bad mistakes.

Brinkley has a good way of using pathos to present and support his argument, and he succeeds in stirring up feelings in his reader so that they will feel the same as he does. Right in the beginning of the article, he brings up a usual image that he saw when he was in Vietnam, "You hear no birds singing, see no squirrels scrambling up trees or rats scurrying among the garbage." With the image, which can be very surprising to Westerners, he makes a huge impact on readers’ perspective immediately, creating a shocking impression on their minds, and thus making them eager to see his further arguments. Throughout the article, he occasionally brings up other images to further support his point. He mentions the "street-side merchant with bowls full of dead rats for sale – their fur removed but otherwise intact – ready to cook" that he caught a glimpse of in Da Nang. To most people, rats are disgusting, and naked dead rats being offered in public are even more a disturbing sight. It links pretty well with his previous statement that local people eat almost every animal around them. Furthermore, he describes the "flatbed truck hauling dogs curled up in little stacked cages," which he saw while driving down the highway, and even compares it with chickens on their ways to slaughterhouses in the West. The images stir up the feeling of disgust among western readers. In countries where people adore cats and dogs like their family members, the thought of actually eating a dog or transporting them like lowly livestock are horrifying, and that is exactly what the author wants. All the images that he mentions in his article cleverly substantiate his final and closing opinion that the way Vietnamese citizens treat their wild animals is gruesome. With those sharp observations, he puts readers in a provoked state, so that they are more willing to listen to him and believe in his words.

Apart from pathos, Brinkley uses logos to further solidify his arguments, but he does a rather poor job. He bombards the readers with various evidences, both from studies and from his observations, but most of them need more citations. For instance, he says, "the World Wildlife Fund describes the state as the world’s greatest wildlife malefactor," to prove that the Vietnamese have severely destroyed their wildlife. However, he does not provide the readers with a solid citation. He should have added the source in which the World Wildlife Fund actually described Vietnam as such a horrible nation. Later in the article, he says, "Various reports show that Vietnamese kill more rhinos for their horns than any other nation." Again, no citation is provided, so there is no way the readers can verify this statement. In later paragraphs, while discussing Vietnam’s dearth of apes, he mentions that, "Conversation International reported that several varieties of Vietnamese gibbon, part of the ape family ‘are perilously close to extinction’." He does not give any clue where to find this report and just quoted some words to add to his arguments. This lack of sources makes readers wonder if he actually did the research, or just made up the whole statements.

Overall, Brinkley’s reasoning is more of less acceptable but nowhere near perfect. He gathers a lot of facts from his research and his observations, and gradually led to his final point. In specific, he begins with his experience in Vietnam, leads to poor wildlife reservation of the country, then compares the country with its neighbors, gives a specific case as in dog consumption, and finally concludes that the way Vietnam treats its animals is cruel. His reasoning is well-organized, so it makes his article very convincing. However, while trying to prove the connection between Vietnam’s meat consumption and its hostility, he puts up miserably weak arguments. For instance, he provides the readers with the number of wars between Vietnam and China and between Vietnam and Cambodia, and concluded that Vietnam is "an aggressive country." Since history is often biased, he should consider more about the causes of the war, not just the number of wars so as to avoid those hasty moral judgments, but instead he decided to jump right to conclusion. His lack of knowledge about the history of Vietnam also shows when he says that, "Vietnamese have regularly eaten meat through the ages … that also helps explain the state’s aggressive tendencies," but he simply forgot that Vietnam has always been a poor country, and meat has been a luxurious source of nutrition to them. His biggest flaw of reasoning is that there is no visible connection between the hostility of a nation and its meat consumption. As Brinkley continuously attacks the country’s historical and cultural attributes to prove his point, he does not give any kind of scientific reason why eating meat makes people aggressive and vice versa. If he wanted to blame the excessive killing of animals on the nature of Vietnamese people, he should have included some studies from trustworthy sources showing that eating meat actually influences people’s nature. Had he done a better job at that part, his article would have been much more effective.

Brinkley does appear likeable to most readers as a result of his usage of ethos. He organizes his article and presented his ideas very clearly, so that his points are easy to follow. He breaks his article into small paragraphs, which discusses different ideas, so that his readers will not be overwhelmed by the information he offers. Furthermore, he includes many of his personal experience and various studies to support his argument. That proves that he has the authority to discuss about the subject, because he actually lived in Vietnam and saw the images of dead rats and dog-loaded trucks with his own eyes. He even includes a brighter look on the situation as he refers to how young Vietnamese people are influenced by Western culture and start keeping pets, which makes the tone of the article much lighter. Also, at the end of the article, it is mentioned that he is a professor of journalism at Stanford University and a Pulitzer Prize winner, which boosts his credibility by far.

However, he makes some mistakes that reduce his credibility. For instance, although he does include many evidences in his article, he does not give enough citation for the readers to verify the trustworthiness of the information. Especially when giving proofs that can be considered offensive, such as the statement from the World Wildlife Fund that Vietnam is "the world’s greatest wildlife malefactor," he should be extra careful and give clear sources in order to appear honest and even-handed. Moreover, he makes a mistake when he mentions the historical facts: the facts are too biased and not relevant at all to the main point of his whole article. That makes his tone somewhat unfair and offensive, especially to Vietnamese readers. In fact, the continuous mistakes in presenting evidences and reasoning makes people wonder if the article is truly written by such an incredible person.

In conclusion, Joel Brinkley’s article is a wakeup call for Vietnamese people. As a Vietnamese, I do not agree with him on the part where he said that my home country is aggressive, because he offended me as well as many other acquaintances who also read the article. However, I understand his point of view as a foreigner, as I also see those horrifying sights and feet disgusted just as much, if not more, as he does. I can relate to his feelings because, just like him, I love seeing animals around me and am against eating dog no matter what the reason. As a reader, I truly value his ideas, so I am open to read more articles from him, as long as he does not repeat those mistakes and insult my heritage.