I avoid animal movies.
The kind where animals talk and act just like humans.
This summer Madagascar was showing at Santee Lakes and I went with some friends. It was definitely funny, but zebras and lions are not best friends in any world but the imaginary world, and it may be funny to watch a giraffe fall in love with a hippo, but you know those kind of relationships don't work.
The Ape and the Sushi Master argues that animals do indeed have a culture, that they are capable emotions and capable of learning. They are definitely not machines.
In the section of Chapter 1 titled "Bambification," de Waal says that once we understand this, then anthropodenial becomes impossible and anthropomorphism inevitable" (71).
He cautions us against the types of anthropomorphism we see in our culture and cites the example of the grizzly bear who has his arm around his mate's shoulder as they enjoy a landscape. He says, "Since bears are nearsighted and do not form pair-bonds, the image was nothing but our own behavior projected onto these animals" (71). This is anthropocentrism.
In your post, clarify the term anthropocentrism. How does de Waal illustrate anthropocentrism? What examples can you give to illustrate this?
If at all possible, include the source for your examples in your paragraph(s).