Everyone is their own teacher! The author greatly renews the article for a long time, and may reading light up everyone's life.
★ Click to read the full article for more articles by the author.
Today I would like to introduce a novel by british writer Roald Dahl, The Great Fox Daddy. Probably many children have already known this author through "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Roald Dahl was a chocolate lover who had been a cool old man in the Royal Air Force. He has also won the Ellen Poe Literary Prize three times and is the master of contemporary literature voted by British readers to defeat J.K. Rowling.
Roald Dahl's work has been published worldwide in 62 languages. Now there are millions of children all over the world who are madly worshipping him. His works were so popular that many of them were adapted into films and animations.
The Marvelous Papa Fox also came to the silver screen in 2009, being adapted into an animation by director Wes Anderson, voiced by big stars George Clooney, Meryl Streep, William Dafoe, and others. Animation was a huge success, with nominations for Best Animated Feature at the 82nd Academy Awards, Best Animated Feature at the 67th Golden Globe Awards, and Best Animated Feature at the 37th Annie Awards.
Roald Dahl is a guy who doesn't play by the usual rules, and in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", he portrays the owner of the chocolate factory, the world-famous and wealthy Mr. Wonka, into a somewhat neurotic "mushroom head". In his chocolate factory, this "mushroom head" sets up all kinds of unexpected and strange tests to punish the ignorant child, just to choose an heir who suits his heart.
The setting of "The Great Fox Daddy" is even more divine, and the owner of the feed farm who was "oiled" by the fox became the "most despicable and least angry" person in the whole world. In the fairy tale world, there are always foxes who steal chickens and dogs to make a living, but this time they have become a positive role. This fox is like Zhi Duoxing, who was forced to go to Liangshan, and he "stole" things, which was a brave struggle after being forced to a dead end. He didn't want his wife and children to starve to death, but he didn't want to oppress rabbits and weasels that were weaker than himself, so he could only use his brain to make up his mind on the murderous humans.
He is very resourceful and knows not to confront humans, but to play to his strengths as an animal. So when he goes to steal poultry, he uses the wind direction to hide his smell. When he is hunted down and killed, he can use his talent of digging holes to find a life for his family. Not to mention, after digging through the secret passage to infiltrate the main warehouse of the breeder, he showed the calmness and sanity, even if the saliva had "flowed to three thousand feet", he would not loot unscrupulously, but carefully take away his own needs, and carefully remove all the "traces of crime" he left behind. Compared with this fox, the three breeders who had plundered the resources of the valley were more greedy, rude and unscrupulous.
Why would Roald Dahl, a strange old man, take the fox's side and tell a human-fox war that ended in human defeat? If in a traditional fairy tale, the narrator would have stood in the position of a human being and described the fox as a cunning and murderous thief, but in this world, there are too many stories told from the perspective of human beings.
Roald Dahl didn't want to continue the cliché, and all the stories said foxes were thieves. But there is no story that tells us why the fox should be a thief. That's what Roald Dahl was interested in. So why should a fox be a thief?
The estates of three breeders, one next to the other, occupied a valley full of them. They enclosures, cut down trees, and raise poultry, while the natives of the valleys, these wild animals, are displaced, losing their forests and grasslands foraging and freedom of movement. Three feedlot owners lay in their homes and ate and drank heavily. Foxes, badgers, weasels, and rabbits can only hide in hiding and endure hunger. Is this fair?
Some children may say that because the owner of the breeding farm is a human! Man is the master of the world, and certainly has more rights than animals. If you think the same way, then please answer the next question. Why are man the masters of the world and not animals? Why can humans have more rights than animals?
Perhaps such an answer will be given, because people have the ability to think. People are smarter and more powerful, and people are able to make tools and change the world. So, the new question arises, is it possible to judge whether a being is the master of the world, and the criterion for enjoying more rights than other beings is intelligence, ability, thinking, and ability to make tools to change the world?
If you answer "yes," can we again conclude that one life is smarter, more powerful, more thoughtful, more capable of making tools, and more conducive to change in the world than another? This life has more rights than another life, and can even do whatever it wants to another life.
From this we must inevitably draw a new inference, only if we have a person around us who is smarter, more powerful, more expensive to think about, and more influential on the world, then he should enjoy more rights than us, and even do whatever he wants to us. Ridiculous isn't it?
Historically, however, the above views have really been widely shared. Based on this view, some men will one-sidedly think that women have little strength and are not good at logical thinking, so their status should be lower than that of men, and they can only become subordinate to men. Others argue that whites are more "civilized" and influential than blacks. So whites could enslave blacks as they pleased.
For those who hold the above two views, women are more "inferior" to life than men, and people with dark skin are more "inferior" than people with white skin. Now, in the vast majority of the world, people know that this is stupid prejudice. Maybe there are differences between men and women, maybe blacks and whites are different, but that doesn't mean who's more "superior" or who has the right to enslave others.
Besides, if everyone is seen as an individual, will any man really be physically superior to any woman? Aren't there a lot of black people in this world, better than some white people in every way?
It is a mistake to judge whether one life is superior to another based on gender and race. Similarly, it is a mistake to judge the value of life by the standard of species. Maybe a friend will say, no! Because everything is better than animals.
Let's take another extreme example. A smart puppy and a human baby with severely damaged brains and no ability to think and no self-awareness, who is smarter, more powerful, and more adept at thinking? There is no doubt that puppies have an advantage. But can we say that the dog thus has more rights than the baby, and should even be the owner of the baby?
The above questions were raised by the Australian philosopher Peter Singh, a titan in the philosophical circles of the world today, in his ethical work "Animal Liberation". In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer reminds humans that both humans and animals are indispensable links in the biological chain of the earth, essentially equal, but we oppress animals too much.
And we have taken this oppression for granted since ancient times. We forget that animals, like us, can grieve, they will be afraid, they will be sore. When they are dominated by sorrow, fear, and pain, they are as helpless and innocent as human children.
Naturally, some people who disagreed with Singer immediately ridiculed him, so animals and humans should be equal, we should give the dogs in the house the right to vote, and send cats to school. Isn't that ridiculous?
Of course it's ridiculous. Because dogs don't need to vote, cats don't need to go to school, and only humans need to vote and learn language mathematics. Peter Singer believes that the so-called equality is not what rights humans enjoy and which rights are given to animals, but equal consideration of different lives and different species, and equal consideration will lead to different treatment and different rights.
For example, the best way for a child to learn is to go to school. Going to school allows children to understand the laws of survival in human society. Schools can not only teach children knowledge, but also allow children to better understand the relationship between people. But for a wild fox, the best way to learn the laws of nature is to stay with your own kind, learn to hunt, escape and cope with the natural environment.
In this example, "equal consideration" means that both the child and the little fox should live. Therefore, we should master the rules and skills of survival in some way, so children have the right to go to school. And the little fox should ensure their right to stay with their parents and companions.
Of course, Peter Singer's views also raise deep-seated questions. For example, if all life is equal, does that mean that all life is worth exactly the same?
This involves complex ethical discussions, which we will not dwell on here. Some friends may not fully agree with some of Peter Singer's views, but we must admit that his exploration of the relationship between animals and humans has indeed triggered extensive reflection around the world. More and more people are participating in the movement for animal rights.
This is undoubtedly a good thing. As Peter Singer said, an action that reduces the total amount of suffering in the world makes sense. Reflections on the relationship between humans and animals are also increasingly reflected in the fields of literature and art. Thus, there were strange people like Roald Dahl, who suddenly wanted to write a book that satirized human greed and cruelty from the side of the fox.
Only then did we notice that the fox with the head of the thief in our impression was actually a handsome, cool-headed and sharp-headed guy with a special sense of family responsibility. Its behavior is not "stealing", but fighting for the right to live for its beloved family.
Looking at the whole book, we will find that the fox family is not bad at all. On the contrary, it is cute and pitiful. Foxes, like humans, just want to live, just want to live better and have a little dignity.
In fact, living better and with more dignity is the appeal of all life in the world. This appeal makes no distinction between gender, race and species, and equality of all beings in the face of sorrow, joy, pain, and fear.
Since the day of the founding of the world, there has been no distinction between high and low. Maybe we won't become vegetarians, maybe we can't admit that animal life has exactly the same value as humans, but we must know that many animals have emotions and feelings like us. Death and pain hurt them as much as they do to us. They are all protagonists in their own lives and have their own wonderful stories. Just like the great fox father, he longs for freedom, for dignity and happiness.
- End -
Welcome to share the circle of friends Reprint please get authorization
-Author-
Zhao Zijun, an article a day, recording work life, reading and learning. Be a seed that spreads love.
Public number: Zhao Jun. Writing is not just about recording, it is evoking some beautiful hearts that are sleeping.