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.)

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…..”

VARI’s New Blog

I have been mulling over the whole website thing with regards to VARI, and decided that the gmail website really isn’t worth my, or anyone else’s for that matter, time. So, what is going to happen is this blog.

The point of the blog is simple: to talk about animal rights issues, but more specifically, the readings that we cover in meetings every week. What is great about the blog format is that not only can regular VARI members post questions and comments, but so can people who cannot make meetings or are not even in Kingston. Maybe this blog will become even more active than our meetings, which can only be a good thing.

Unlike the previous website, I am not going to be posting very much news or any other AR related articles (though this doesn’t mean that others are not welcome to post) save the readings and noteworthy pieces directly relating to them. This way it saves everyone time and energy and allows us to focus on what is important: thoughtful discussion of animal rights issues.

We haven’t yet set a date for our first meeting, nor have we even decided what we are going to do at the first meeting. I suspect that some of us will poster soon (once the poster is made, anyone?) and that a gathering will commence sometime early next week and we will simply have a meet and greet orientation type thing. If anyone has a preferred time to meet just send an email over the list (vari@lists.riseup.net), it looks as though Tuesday is a good night, but who knows.

Finally, if anyone has any suggestions about what to do for this year or what readings were good/bad just post some comments.

See everyone soon,
Peter