On (Re-)Reading “A Modest Proposal”

I thought I’d update this oft-neglected blog with some musings on my recent (re-)reading of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” for my Restoration literature class. I first read it in high school, years before I went vegan. For those who don’t know, the proposal is that to solve the Irish hunger crisis, the infants of lower-class families should be sold at a year old to upper-class families as food. Poor people would have money and there would be less hungry children to feed – problem solved. (This actually isn’t Swift’s most shocking work. That title has to go to his poem “The Lady’s Dressing Room”, which one should not read on a full stomach.) The essay was intended to draw attention to the seriousness of the situation in Ireland with the stoic attitude of the proposer towards his extremely absurd solution.

But why is it absurd? Why are we so horrified at the prospect of selling human babies for food, when killing babies is one of the backbones of the animal agriculture industry? Male chicks ground into cattle feed less than a week after they’re born, veal calves killed for a supposed “delicacy”, broiler chickens manipulated to grow at obscenely fast rates so they can be killed at seven weeks old…What are we doing if not exactly what Jonathan Swift is ironically proposing? We kill the babies of a marginalized and powerless group in order to feed the dominant group. My favourite line is near the end of the essay: “I can think of no one Objection that will possibly be raised against this Proposal.” Well, why should we object? We already do it. In fact, Swift intentionally likens his proposal to the practices already used to raise animals for food: babies are overfed so that they’ll be plump when it comes time for slaughter; he refers to their bodies by words like “carcass” and “flesh”; and in his scenario more males will be killed than females to ensure good “breeding”. Swift’s proposal isn’t just absurd in itself. It draws attention to the absurdity of animal agriculture.

Swift didn’t make the connection, but we, fortunately, can.

Why not just be a vegetarian?

Jessie is going to be publishing the following in the Journal, give her some feedback!

I am proud to say that I have now spent over a quarter of my life meat-free. Although I loved the taste of meat as a teenager, the decision to become vegetarian for ethical reasons was an easy one, a smart one, and one that I’ve never regretted.
However, after four and a half years, I began to have a nagging sensation that perhaps vegetarianism wasn’t the answer after all – indeed, to question whether it had any value at all. Finally, in November of last year, I gave up on being a vegetarian. Or perhaps I should say I moved forward: I became a vegan.
A vegan is a person who abstains from using any animal products. I don’t eat dairy, eggs, or honey, I don’t wear leather, silk, or wool, and I don’t use hygiene products that were tested on animals or that contain animal-derived ingredients. This may seem like a restrictive lifestyle, but within a week or two of my newfound veganism I went from asking “What will I eat?” to “What the hell took me so long?”
Our society encourages a skewed relationship with animals. Some, we take into our homes and treat as family members; others, we breed, exploit, and slaughter by the tens of billions every year, for no other reason than that they taste good. Like me, you may believe that lacto-ovo vegetarianism (a diet which abstains from meat but allows dairy products and eggs) is an acceptable personal solution. Unfortunately, the treatment of dairy cows and egg hens is no better, and in many cases, much worse than the treatment of animals exploited for their flesh; when they are “spent”, as the industry calls it, they are slaughtered and used for cheap, low-grade meat. To paraphrase animal rights philosopher Gary Francione, there may be more suffering in a glass of milk than in a pound of steak.
If you are a lacto-ovo vegetarian for ethical reasons, I urge you to consider the wealth of information available online about veganism. Going vegan is easy and worthwhile, for yourself, for the environment, and of course, for the animals. Go Vegan Now!

(Please see www.abolitionistapproach.com, www.peacefulprairie.org, www.vegweb.com, and varikingston.wordpress.com for starting points on your vegan journey, and come out every Tuesday at 7:00 for a meeting of the Vegan Animal Rights Initiative in the basement of Stauffer Library.)

“Abolition” is insulting: Part Deux

This is getting fun. Michael Couchman’s reply to my email. I haven’t read all of it yet, let me know what you think.

“Dear Peter,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my concise and coherent email. In turn, I would like to address several issues, point by point, from your asinine and insipid argument before answering the primary question you posed to me on the subject of equivalent “moral status” between humans and animals. I then have a brief list of questions about the contradictory and questionable ethics of your dietary preference that you can ponder, if you are so inclined.

Firstly, while the polite thing to have done before posting my message on your blog would have been to notify me, you are welcome to use and distribute it for whatever purposes you have in mind, including the communal discussion and learning elements you mentioned. However, I am not altogether certain what benefit you may gain from it in these respects, considering you seemed to utterly dismiss my argument as being “vacuous”, and me for being “ignorant” and using “wretched behaviour” to justify my views. Your opening comment appeared more like a toothless threat to silence dissent than a genuine desire to expose yourself and your colleagues to a variety of opinions on your beliefs.

I never once called you or your group racist anti-Semites and I don’t appreciate you putting those words in my mouth. As for your closing comment concerning Alan Dershowitz, I have no wish to engage a radical left-winger such as yourself in heated debate on the Israeli/Palestinian political issue, but will simply point out that the use of terms like “Zionist agenda” displays in you a clear bias and a hint of deep paranoia.

You seem to believe that you are noble in linking yourselves to Lincoln and other true abolitionists, yet in fact what you are doing is comparing the forcibly immigrated Africans of the slave-owning southern U.S. to mere animals. If you took your own advice and actually researched the definition of the word “abolition” you would find that yes, technically it refers to a state of abolishment, similar to annulment or abrogation, but more commonly it is a term especially applied when referring to the historical fight against slavery in America. This is a reason why, for instance, I didn’t use the term to describe my own efforts to dissuade you from polluting the mental environment any more than you already have. As involved as I am in the issue, I decided out of an innate sense of taste and decency not to compare my objections to your organization with the righteous struggle for emancipation. Were you to use the other terms that you outlined such as “eliminationists, terminationists, destructionists” or any other synonyms for abolition with an “”ist” on to the end” I would still disagree with your group, but would have no problem with the way you express your deeply flawed beliefs.

Using the word “abolition” is insulting?

The following message was sent to the VARI email account. It was written by Michael Couchman, who is, from what I could gather from him being on the 1st year Film DSC, a second year film major (but maybe not). Anyway, that isn’t important, what is important is the email. I am writing a reply right now and if anyone is interested in helping out, I can send it to you when it is done and we can go through some edits.

“I am sending you this message to relay to you my objections with the content of your recent animal rights posters on campus. I find your use of the word “abolitionist” to be an insult to all those who have suffered the injustices of oppression. Historically this term was attached to opposition against such things as slavery and apartheid. As I’m sure you’re aware, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has used holocaust imagery on their website, comparing the treatment of Jews in concentration camps to the plight of factory farm chickens. Why more animal rights activists haven’t been greviously offended by the common citation of ethnic cleansing and human suffering to demonstrate the wrongs of the meat industry escapes me. Moreover, I fail to see how you can so self-righteously call yourselves “abolitionists”, thereby likening your movement to the deeds of such significant figures as Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela. Veganism should be seen as a dietary choice, not a revolutionary statement.

Being a former vegetarian, I can understand to a degree your perspective on animal cruelty and rights abuses. However, I do not comprehend the need for such melodramatic theatrics in order to get your message conveyed. Personally, I believe that people should first and foremost be dedicated to humanism. I become suspicious of anyone’s true agenda when radical ideology begins to overtake this simple principle.

In conclusion, I respect your right to protest the issues closest to your heart, but politely ask of you to change the terminology on your next edition of promotional posters. I have no reservations against taking this problem to The Journal, the African Caribbean Association, the Hillel Foundation, Amnesty International at Queen’s University, and the Committee Against Racism and Ethnic Discrimination.

Regards,
Michael Couchman”

Boycott Veganism

No, I am not a turncoat. What do you people take me for?

Actually, I just found this wonderful little paper on why it is reasonable for a person concerned about the rights of animals to reject veganism. Yes, they actually argue that it would be better for the animals if all us animal activists just said “Fuck it, I am going to go eat a steak”. Well, at least I think that is what they are saying.

I think that, whenever I am bored, I am going to post rebuttals to the arguments here, since some seem to me to reflect some pretty common misunderstandings about ethical veganism and animal rights generally. Others, however, just seem to reflect misunderstandings about what it is for something to be an argument. These points are kind of funny, but really not worth anyone’s time. For example, read “argument” number two. And to think, this person is writing a book!

Also, this article gives us some fodder for the contributors who don’t know what to contribute. Just pick one of the arguments and knock it down.

But, for what its worth, I don’t think anyone will be able to top Seitan’s comments on the Vegan Freaks board.

“what the fuck are you talking about? if im reading (and understanding) this correct, its very insulting, not to me, but to the animals that are getting their fuckin faces kicked in because people are such weak fuckups, to abstain from something that is totally un-necessary in the first place.

fuck me, are you taking the piss?
somebody please tell me im reading this wrong, please…..”

First Reading: Francione on Michael Vick

I suppose now is as good a time as any to experiment with the new blog format. Below is a little article Gary Francione wrote about the charges brought against Michael Vick for organizing dog fights.

Hopefully, this post gets as much reaction as Francione’s original post did, and can foster some lively discussion. Please post any thoughts, questions, criticisms etc. in the comments section.

A Note about Michael Vick

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/2007/08/02/a-note-about-michael-vick/

“There has been an enormous amount of coverage of the alleged dog fighting operation sponsored by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. Vick and three other men were indicted on federal felony charges claiming that Vick had sponsored illegal dog fighting, gambled on dog fights and permitted acts of cruelty against animals on his property. The talk shows are filled with talking heads from the “humane community” condemning dog fighting and calling for Vick to be punished if he is, indeed, guilty. Nike and Reebok have suspended products endorsed by Vick.

Please let me be very clear: I think that dog fighting is a terrible thing.

But I must say that the Vick case is rather dramatically demonstrating what I call our “moral schizophrenia” about animals. That is, if one thing is clear, it is that we do not think clearly about our moral obligations to animals.

In this country alone, we kill over ten billion land animals annually for food. The animals we eat—even those supposedly raised “humanely”—suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting. There is no “need” for us to eat meat, dairy, or eggs. Indeed, these foods are increasingly linked to various human diseases and animal agriculture is an environmental disaster for the planet. We impose pain, suffering, and death on these billions of sentient nonhumans because we enjoy eating their flesh and the products that we make from them.

There is something positively bizarre about condemning Michael Vick for using dogs in a hideous form of entertainment when 99% of us also use animals that are every bit as sentient as dogs in another hideous form of entertainment that is no more justifiable than fighting dogs: eating animals and animal products.