Blog #2...response to U.S. Pets' Healthcare Better Than Rwandan Humans'

This article from the Onion struck me right away because Healthcare is one of my largest concerns for the future. And the saddest part about this article is that, although it is meant to be satirical and sarcastic, it is probably largely a true statement.

In Rwanda, 60% of the population live below the poverty line and 10-12% of the population suffer from food insecurity every year (Wikipedia).

In the US, we spend over $11 billion dollars on pet food alone, more than enough to help those citizens of Rwanda with their food and healthcare.

This article, I think, uses elements of Release and Relief humor. The tension created is that of the crisis of living conditions currently in Rwanda (what with genocide, poverty, and inadequate food supply), and the relief is the humorous way in which this article addresses the problem. The reader detaches from the problem enough so that they are not disturbed by the truth, but at the same time the article makes clear the fact that our US pets live better than Rwandan citizens. It's impossible, knowing the nature of Onion articles, to not pick up on this point. However, the humor of the article relieves us from the uncomfortable knowledge that people in certain parts of the world are far less well off than we.

I also see some aspects of Cognitive humor. Without prior knowledge of the goings-on in Rwanda, this article might not seem as humorous to a reader. However, when we know how living conditions are in certain parts of the world like Rwanda, we can laugh a little because the points made in the article are just astounding. I mean...come on! It's totally true that a pet owner in the US probably spends more on healthcare for their pet than is even AVAILABLE to a human citizen in Rwanda (or similar countries). It was still a disturbing article to me, but my prior knowledge made it a little bit more humorous.

Knowing the pet food/Rwandan food crisis fact also helps contribute to knowledge that makes the article more humorous. Only because it's so freaking ridiculous.

Not to say that pets aren't important, of course.

According to Brittanica Online, in 2002 there were 155 physicians in ALL of Rwanda. With a population of over 8,000,000, this is an astounding fact that speaks to Rwanda's poor health conditions. According to www.talktothevet.com/faqvetcareer.HTM, there are 58,000 vets in the United States alone.

I think that because of facts like these, even for those who do not have cognitive knowledge of the situation, there can exist a form of ambivalence theory. We laugh because we are conflicted. We do not want to turn a blind eye to the growing problems in Rwanda, but at the same time are being confronted with elements of humor. We want to laugh, but the topic is so humanely disturbing. We read quotes about people dying from lack of medication, then others about how great it would be to be a border collie in America. We are, in short, conflicted, and whether we laugh from the humor or laugh from being uncomfortable, it is clear that elements of Ambivalence theory are present in our reaction.

That's it, I suppose. It was really interesting to read this article because I didn't know how staggeringly different the numbers were when comparing Rwanda and US pets. It's so incredibly absurd that so many Rwandan citizens (or MOST) could be fed for what we spend on pet food, and even more absurd that we have so many more vets than they do physicians. I'm almost laughing now at how absurd it is! (but not really...i can't really think that Rwanda's crisis is that funny).