On Delusional Authors

I was actually going to let this one go because I knew I would write about the snubbing of Peaceful Prairie yesterday, but Bea (in the comments of this post) just couldn't stand by and have it go unnoticed.

What, you ask? An article about yet another book from Susan Bourette about how great it can feel to have animals killed for your meals. This one is called MEAT: A LOVE STORY. The article, "For Meat-Eating Authors, a More Tender Approach," by Jane Black of the Washington Post, features a photo of a smiling Catherine Friend, author of "THE COMPASSIONATE CARNIVORE" (which is a "warm and witty" book that tells you how to "reduce your hoofprint and still eat meat"), holding two sentient beings whom she apparently has no problem killing, or having someone kill for her.

The article is rife with delusion, as it merely describes books that are rife with delusion. At first, I thought, "Wow, these people have great publicists." But whether or not that's true, the real story is that the American reading public wants to have "experts" of any kind (or authors of any kind) provide them with ways to make the using and killing of animals sound acceptable, or even beneficial (for farmers, for instance, whom Friend wants to save).

"People are worried, but they still want to eat meat," says Roger Horowitz, author of "Putting Meat on the American Table" (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), which charts historical patterns of meat consumption. "So there's a great market opportunity for people to talk about what really happens when you eat meat and tell people that it's okay."

So you can kill animals, but in a nice way and maybe after snuggling with their cuteness, and you can save small farmers at the same time. Plus, because the small farmers don't pollute on the scale of factory farms, you help the planet too. It's a win-win-win-win, right?

No, it's not. It's never--I repeat, never--a win for the animals. That's impossible, and that's why I call these authors delusional. They are not being honest with themselves or with their readers when they provide excuses for them. I haven't read the books and I don't know what the excuses are (but I can guess). What they are denying is the reality that whatever their equation is, it cannot be in the best interest of the animals. Period. No matter how you treat a nonhuman animal you created to use and kill, what you're doing cannot be called ethical because of the very premise of creating a nonhuman animal to use and kill. Why does that fact elude so many otherwise intelligent people? (I think the answer rhymes with: speciesism.)

This article has the obligatory and absurd:

"To be a real carnivore, a true carnivore, you have to be conscientious and discerning," Gold says [author of THE SHAMELESS CARNIVORE]. "Eat good meat and source it well. Acknowledge where it comes from. And respect the fact that the animal died for your dinner."

I think he's used that quote before and I even think I referred to it. Regardless, acknowledging you've paid someone to kill someone isn't respect. The animal didn't just die--she was slaughtered for you and you paid for the convenience of not having to do it yourself.

The language that The Delusional Carnivores use cannot be allowed to continue without commentary and correction. Friend writes a "Letter to the Lambs" in her book that says:

"Tomorrow morning, when we load you onto the trailer for your trip to the abattoir, we will be thinking about the life you've lived on this farm -- running around the pasture at dusk, sleeping in the sun, and grazing enthusiastically for the tenderest bits of grass. We will say out loud, 'Thank you.' "

Thank you? Did they have a choice? Did they do anything for her? No. All she did was take from them--there was no giving. She shouldn't be expressing gratitude, she should be begging for forgiveness.

Check out the comments and/or add your own, or write a letter to the editor.

Comments

[Joseph]

*Bangs head against wall* What the hell is wrong with these people?! All of these compassionate (sic) omnivores have serious psychological issues.

[Fredrik Fält]

That "Letter to the Lambs" was scary. Talk about distorted reality.

I find it very interesting to see the comment from Roger Horowitz
"So there's a great market opportunity for people to talk about what really happens when you eat meat and tell people that it's okay."

This is what Gary Francione has been saying for a long time (and been ridiculed for). "Happy meat" only makes people feel good about eating meat and is nothing any AR organization should be involved with.

[Angus]

Although "carnivore" means "meat eater", it properly applies to species that are biologically built to live almost exclusively on flesh. By referring to human meat-eaters as "carnivores", these authors imply that a departure from meat-eating is unnatural. At least "omnivore" suggests that meat-eating is optional. I'm not concerned whether humans should be biologically classed as omnivores rather than herbivores. (Chimpanzees, despite some opportunistic meat-eating, are classed as "fructivores" -- fruit eaters.) The point is that we have a choice about our diets.

In one sense this outbreak of books about "compassionate carnivores" is good news. It suggests that the idea that meat-eating is not compassionate (or healthy, or environmentally friendly) is getting out there. In the "developed" nations things have moved past the "ignore you" stage to somewhere between the "laugh at you" stage and the "fight you" stage. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee we'll ever get to "then you win".

[Mary Martin]

These authors must know that we're not carnivores and the only debate, biologically, would be omnivore versus herbivore. The use of carnivore, to me, is like rubbing my nose in the fact that they've chosen to eat animals when it's so clear that they don't need to. Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but all of this usage of "carnivore," because it's so inaccurate and no one is taking them to task, is frightening. I fear that "then you win" Angus, isn't around the corner, as they will cling to their permission. They've been waiting for it for a long time, and it has finally arrived. And arrived. And arrived.

Abolitionists are more important than ever, as we appear to be the only clear voice amid the rationalization, denial and delusion.

[Lenn]

Another thoughtful and informative post, Mary!

I have never seen this issue addressed, but I want to address a little of the reality of the "small farmers" or "family farms". I live in a rural area. My piece of land is about 1-2 acres. There is nothing but land on all sides of me. And EVERYONE (except me) that lives around here exploits animals for profit, mostly cattle. Each "family farm" (average about 5-20 acres) has bulldozed practically every tree in sight.

While the cattle are mostly allowed to roam "free" on this land, they are left out in every kind of weather with no shelter. Often there is no shade for the endless 100 degree days, nor shelter for multiple days of icy rain. No medical care is given, leaving sick animals to suffer for days or weeks. If any cow dies, they just tie their bodies to the back of their pickup and drag them to some far corner of the field to rot.

On land that isn't being used for the cows to roam, they are spraying tons of toxic chemicals (herbicides & pesticides) to grow hay to feed those cattle. They will spray the stuff into the air when the wind is blowing 10-20 mph. Since March, I've been smelling the stuff continuously. Who knows how far away it's coming from. And it's perfectly legal.

They treat their dogs and companion animals just as horribly as their "livestock". They are most often hunters, too. It would be no stretch for anyone to understand what a complete lack of character these people have in all their dealings. They are very corrupt.

Deb at Invisible Voices had a good story about the horrors of a family farm that sells goat cheese. http://invisiblevoices.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/yet-more-babies-arrive-at-poplar-spring/

These are not people anybody should encourage or support. I wish before people supported some label, they would find out what the reality was.

Also, more vegans and abolitionists need to buy up rural land so we can prevent the hunting, livestock-raising, pesticide-polluting, land-developing, & animal exploiting that makes up almost all the rural-dwelling population. In other words, if we own the land, we say what happens on it. Then the wildlife would have safe places to live, we humans would have beautiful, healthy, natural environments to add to the world, etc.

[Joselle Palacios]

There's a greater pathology behind saying, "We watched you frolic and be free and when we ship you off to be terrified and tortured and killed in darkness, we will say thank you," than there is in someone who just eats meat but doesn't know the truth. The rationalizations one has to make to "thank" animals for their own slaughter is mind-blowing and sick. It shows a tremendous amount of arrogance and delusion. Additionally, it is a trendy and privileged line of thinking that most people on the planet can absolutely not afford, which goes to show how damn stupid it is.

[Roger]

Yes, isn't the picture of Friend appalling. It reminds me of the meat eaters who coo out of the train window as they pass lambs in the field - exploit them twice, why don'tcha?

You mentioned snuggling with their cuteness, Mary, and it reminded me of a time I nearly threw up in a store in Wales. There was a couple buying (battery) eggs, so the guy opens a carton and spies a small white feather attached to one egg. He strokes it and shows it to his partner: "ahhh", he says with a sickly smile.

"Ahhh", she says back. They chose this carton of eggs.

Give me strength (to hold the content of my stomach)...

Roger.