Animal Person

On "The Botany of Desire"

This is coming very, very late, but part of why "Food Inc." wasn't impressive for me is because I'm not the target audience. I'd already read Pollan and Schlosser and seen "The Future of Food" and "King Corn." And though The Omnivore's Dilemma definitely promotes the eating of animals if those animals were "farmed" a certain way (and locally), there's so much helpful information in it about the food supply, in general, that it's tough to tell people not to read it.

Because The Botany of Desire doesn't address animals (Pollan discusses four plants: apples, tulips, marijuana and potatoes), there's no way for it to promote their consumption. I read this book over a year after The Omnivore's Dilemma, despite it having been published first, and I feel strongly about recommending it because of what it teaches about culture, greed, history, and . . . plants.

From John Chapman (Johny Appleseed) not eating animals or using horses in his travels (and the fact that apples originated in the forests of Kazakhstan) to the dotcom-like frenzy over the tulip in Holland to the evolution of cannabis to convincing me to never eat french fries at a restaurant (that's the only potato product I eat when I go out, and of course I inquire about what it is fried in), Pollan does a wonderful job of making the stories of the most ordinary plants sound like exotic adventures.

And of course, the entire book is a commentary on what happens when humans decide that a plant, for whatever reason, is desirable (or perhaps, as Pollan suggests, we have been set up by the plants to desire them).

On "Wild Justice"

 "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals," By Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, is the most recent (for me) book that debunks myths about the differences between human and nonhuman animals. And those mythical differences, of course, have historically been used to legitimize our use and treatment of our nonhuman cousins. This particular group fits in with other Bekoff books as well as those by Jonathan Balcombe and Jeffrey Masson (see here for more on some of them from April of 2008).

Bekoff and Pierce (a philosopher) are the perfect combination to write this book because whenever you're presenting the similarities of nonhuman animals to human animals, a philosophical conundrum is created for humans, who like to think that we are worlds different, and above nonhumans. But as the frequently-invoked Darwin would say, those differences are of degree, not kind.

Just to be clear, this book deals with the nonhuman animals who are most like us: social vertebrates, and specifically social mammals (and there are a handful of references to cetaceans who behave similarly). "Morality is an evolutionary adaptation to social living" (45), and the hypothesis of Bekoff and Pierce is that "greater social complexity is linked with more complex and nuanced moral behaviors" (53). Also, Bekoff and Pierce present a descriptive view, not a normative view of morality. There are no judgments. They amassed an enormous amount of data, and then "allowed the data to do the talking" (151).

I'll get to what the data said in a moment, but first a few more clarifications.

• The authors make a distinction between narrative ethology and "'animal stories' that proliferate on the Web . . . . Narrative from seasoned ethologists provides interpretation informed by their knowledge about a particular species and its behavior, and their attention to context and individual peculiarities" (37).
• Bekoff and Pierce "advocate a species-relative view of morality. Each species in which moral behavior has evolved has its unique behavioral repertoire. The same basic behavioral capacities will be present--empathy, altruism, cooperation, and perhaps a sense of fairness--but will manifest as different social norms and different behaviors. . . . Despite some shared evolutionary history, wolf morality is different from human morality and also from elephant morality and chimpanzee morality" (19).
• "The scientific investigation of morality, in humans and nonhumans alike, is in its infancy" (39).
• Regarding accusations of anthropomorphism (which arise frequently and did in Bekoff's previous book, as well) and also evolutionary continuity, which provides for symmetry in comparisons, the authors write: "It isn't that we set out looking for humanlike traits in animals and hope to find some. Rather, we set out to understand what animals are like, and use the language and concepts that come closest to describing what we see" (41).

What did Bekoff and Pierce find?

They found a "suite of behaviors" including cooperation, empathy and justice, and various intelligences that make those behaviors possible. Each behavior comprises a "cluster" of behaviors that may or may not be considered moral, and also aren't necessarily defined as you would imagine. And therein is the necessity to pay close attention to the language in the book, although that is useful only to a degree as "not all ethologists and biologists agree that cooperation among animals is really cooperation . . . . [T]hey may be acting independently and simultaneously, without any cognitive decision to work together" (64). Furthermore, "We need to be careful about language and remember that [for example] altruism has a specific meaning within biology and isn't synonymous with morality" (82).

The authors discuss the three clusters of behavior (cooperation, empathy and justice) and the kinds and degrees of intelligences necessary for them to be present, with justice being the least certain of the three. But whether of not there is wide agreement on the existence of wild justice within social mammal communities (there isn't), we do find that the cognitive, social and emotional lives of these animals are far more developed and rich than most people are willing (or educated enough to) admit.

And therein lies one question the authors pose: Now that we are delving into the lives of animals in this way and are finding that they are not beings who are completly driven by instinct, never thinking about the future or past, and incapable of acting in a way that is good for others, particularly if there is a cost to themselves, aren't we obligated to seriously "[reconsider] the uses to which we put animals in research, education, and for clothes and food, among other things" (137)?

Note to Those Wanting Promotion: Pay Attention

We bloggers often get e-mails from individuals and organizations in search of promotion. And that's fine, as we all want to spread the news of fantastic work that needs support. Case in point: AnimalEquality.

But there are two types of requests that are irksome to me:
1.    People I hear from only when they want me to promote them, and I have never asked them to promote me (I'm terrible at that) nor have they ever done it of their own accord. I should recognize their work, yet they won't recognize mine. And though it's not a colossal problem by any means, it's annoying for a moment, and with the world being the way it is, I have enough to be annoyed about.

2.    People who want me to promote them but they clearly haven't spent any meaningful time reading what I have written. They probably have a list of people whom they blast an e-mail to, changing only the field after the Dear in the letter, and they hope some of them will stick. And that's when I get e-mails like this:

Dear Mary
 
I’m Caroline and I’m one of the Supporter Services team members for Compassion in World Farming.
 
Having read your blogs I thought you might like to hear about Compassion in World Farming’s Bake with Compassion fundraising week.
 
From the 6th -10th of July we are asking everyone to get their aprons on and bake with free-range or organic eggs.

By encouraging people to bake with higher welfare eggs (as well as organic milk, butter and chocolate) vital funds will be raised to campaign against battery cages. We are hoping you might be interested in spreading word of the event to readers of your blog, or may know someone who would like to blog about this fundraising event.

Now, I'm the first one to say that when I began blogging I thought the end of the use of animals would never come, so in the meantime, welfare reforms could at least be supported. But that was back in 2006. And if Compassion in World Farming wanted to see if I knew of their campaigns and might want to support them, they could have easily Googled CIWF right at Animal Person, at which point they'd find:

• On Compassion in World Farming
• Eat More Veal? How About Be More Honest
• On Graphic Images We DON'T See
• The PeTA I Knew and Loved, Sort Of
• On Egypt's Pig Cull

When someone takes the time to write a personal e-mail and it's obvious they've interacted with me and readers or at least know what I stand for, and their cause is aligned, I'm always happy to oblige. It's not as if I have an enormous readership, and certain folks stay away because it's not in my nature to travel with any flock, but if I can make even a small contribution to someone who does great work, I'm thrilled.

Note to Compassion in World Farming: I want to see the end of farms that use sentient nonhumans. An end. Not a change in the way they do things. An end.

The Book That Saved Derrick Jensen's Life

The book, which I have not read, that saved Derrick Jensen's life is called The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability by Lierre Keith, who was a vegan for 20 years, suffered serious medical problems, and started feeling better when she recommenced eating animals. Here's a review by vegetarian Mark Hand, who still eschewed "meat" even after reading the book. Here are some tidbits:

• Keith believes humans need to embrace the consumption of animal products, including beef, or else face severe and chronic health problems. “All the friends of my youth were radical, righteous, intense. Vegetarianism was the obvious path, with veganism the high road alongside it. And those of us who did it long term ended up damaged,” she writes.
• Some might argue that Keith has simply become an advocate of “happy meat”—local, grass-fed, sustainably produced, and humanely raised meat. But that would be unfair. If there were ever a movement devoted to the principles set out in The Vegetarian Myth and if it proved successful, such a movement would easily result in a spectacular reduction in the suffering and torture of animals, compared to what they experience today in factory farms and due to ecosystem devastation.
• Throughout the book, Keith mocks vegetarians and vegans. She portrays them as adolescents. “In the narrative of my life, the first bite of meat after my twenty year hiatus marks the end of my youth, the moment when I assumed the responsibilities of adulthood,” Keith writes. “It was the moment I stopped fighting the basic algebra of embodiment: for someone to live, someone else had to die. In that acceptance, with all its suffering and sorrow, is the ability to choose a different way, a better way.”
• Clinical studies, according to Keith, have found that low-fat diets increase anger, depression and anxiety. Low cholesterol levels occur more often among criminals, individuals diagnosed with violent or aggressive conduct disorders, and homicidal offenders with histories of violence and suicide attempts related to alcohol.

Keith's argument is not alien to vegan-environmentalists, and it of course ends at places like Polyface Farms (according to Hand's review).

I'm going to see if my library can get the book because I am curious about why Keith would consider vegans "naive, unhealthful and destructive," and I'm interesting in her explanations/rationalizations. I think there are people (and dogs) for whom veganism is nutritionally difficult and who have to work hard at getting and assimilating what they need due to their own unique constitutions and combination of health challenges. But to generalize that humans should be consuming other sentient beings because of that is, I think, a stretch.

Hand isn't convinced, but does steer us to happy meat in the event of health problems caused by our veganism. And with regard to killing in order to survive, there's a difference between "killing" a carrot and killing a cow, whom you know is just as sentient as your dog or your child.

If anyone has read the book, let me know your thoughts.

On Thanking Slaughtered Sheep for Book Awards

Jenny sent me a link to a remarkably-ironic story that was very tough to get through.

Remember Catherine Friend, who wrote Compassionate Carnivore? (Here's my commentary on it, and here's my commentary about what compassionate carnivore means--and doesn't mean.)

Well, she apparently did such a great job convincing the folks at the Minnesota Book Awards that you can claim to love animals and then send them to slaughter, that not only was she a finalist for their award, but she won it.

In her blog yesterday she wrote of her experience accepting the award, and who she thanked and didn't thank.

Did I thank the Loft Literary Center for all its support, or the Friends of the Saint Paul Library for hosting the MN Book Awards?

Again, no.

In my own defense, I was nervous, a bright floodlight shone right in my eyes, and I was worried because the mike seemed too low. I just wanted to be out of there.

So I thanked Melissa, thanked Renee, then I---hold on to your hat--thanked my sheep.

Holy Stupid-Thing-To-Say, Batman.

Luckily ten years of Toastmasters taught me that the dumb things we say in public quickly fade, leaving nothing but a lovely blown glass award glowing on the living room table.

She expressed her gratitude for those she kills in her book, as well:

"When I first ate a meal from one of our lambs, I thought I'd be upset, since it'd been so hard to take them to the abbattoir. But instead of being sad or upset at the lamb chop on my plate, I was overcome with gratitude. It wasn't the sort of gratitude you feel when someone sacrifices something for you, since the animal I was eating had made no such choice; I'd made the choice for it. But it was a gratitude that came from acknowledging I was eating the flesh of an animal, and in order for me to do that, Melissa and I had worked very hard to be sustainable and humane farmers" (252).

But none of this should be surprising, as you may recall that Friend wrote a "Letter to My Lambs," also in her award-winning book, where she claimed to love them and honor them. For some reason she appeared to be proud to say: "you will die quickly tomorrow. You won't be part of a kill and disassembly line but you will be killed, one at a time" (159).

But slaughtering sentient beings, when you have no need to, is nothing to be proud of, and it's certainly nothing to be awarded for. It's betrayal, pure and simple.

What Would Jesus NOT Do?

Made me cringe a bit at the very end, but still fantastic.

Write a Book--Together

In "Is This the Future of the Digital Book?" in yesterday's New York Times, Brad Stone reported on a couple of new developments in the publishing world. The one that caught my eye as useful for vegans and the animal rights community is:

WEBook, a venture-backed start-up in New York, allows people to collaborate on writing books and is working on new ways to let readers give writers real-time feedback on their work.

Check out WEBook's site, where you can read and vote on the writing of others, become a top reviewer like at Amazon, and submit a book to be published.

There could be a popularity-contest element that might make fantastic writing, no matter how fantastic, not as frequently-reviewed or highly-rated. Regardless, you can use it to find contributors for your book idea, and if it doesn't win, you can publish and distribute it yourself.

It's 2009, and publishing is changing and the way new creative ideas of all kinds get to the public has changed, as well. Artists have many new avenues for reaching their potential audience and the only thing that is often in their way of proceeding down one of those new avenues is the idea that it's not a "real" accomplishment, book, film, or whatever, unless it was produced and distributed to the public the old fashioned way (by a major publisher, a major studio, etc...).

Though vegan cookbooks certainly have been doing well, vegan nonfiction books don't traditionally do as well (of course there are exceptions, such as the "bible of animal rights" by the "father of animal rights"). Perhaps a new format will help. And perhaps different genres like fiction and poetry that are vegan and/or animal rights-based might be worth a shot (I'm not saying no one has done it).

Check out Vegancrowd for some existing vegan work and ideas for projects. For me, I think blogging is close to its threshold of utility (and that's putting it kindly--I probably should have cut back a long time ago), but I'm sure you all have lots of ideas in you. Maybe getting together a writing a book might be worthwhile for you!

Publish Your Own AR Book or Magazine

As you may know, I'm a writer/ghostwriter/editor. That's how I've made my living for over 20 years.

My clients have always been a combination of experts who already have book deals with large publishers, and entrepreneurs who say Why on Earth would I let them take so much of my potential profits? The latter form a publishing company, get their own block of ISBNs (like Social Security numbers for publications of all kinds), and print and distribute the books themselves (or outsource those parts). Sure, it's a lot of work, but if you're already an entrepreneur, and you have a bunch of products that could be made into books, workbooks, CDs, and DVDs, why not self-publish? (And just for clarity, I'm not talking about using Xlibris and the like, which are print-on-demand companies.)

Many vegans and animal rights activists "have a book in them" but soon discover, despite their well-crafted book proposal and sample chapters, that most mainstream publishers aren't interested. Unless you have already published a book that has sold well, you're too big a risk, and in their minds the market is way too small and specialized to roll the dice on you. The book publishing business is not doing well, and taking big risks on unknown authors with tiny markets isn't on a publisher's Top 10 list of things to do.

In my experience, what holds back most authors from self-publishing is one word: ego. They want the approval of the "real" publishing world (usually meaning New York), and regardless of the reality that the real publishing world probably isn't going to lift a finger to help sell their book, they'd choose that over making an e-book or self-publishing and selling a bunch of books on the Internet.

But what's the goal? Isn't the goal to spread your message, whatever it is, in the most effective and efficient way possible? Sometimes the goal is indeed to get a big NY house to publish your book, as perhaps your career trajectory requires that. But if you have something to say that you'd like the world to hear sooner rather than later, and you have an Internet connection and maybe some layout software, you don't need much money to get started creating your own books and magazines.

The big secret of self-publishing is that you can figure out what you need, sample different paper and fonts, find an artist for your cover, and do all of the work yourself, or you can write your book and have someone else do all the rest very inexpensively. You can even have someone else write it, though that's not so inexpensive.

Check out Booksjustbooks.com, which is one-stop shopping for all of your self-publishing needs. They have already negotiated prices for you, they have designers and editors, and links and articles that answer every possible question you'd have about the self-publishing process for every kind of book you'd want to produce.

And if you want to produce a magazine (or even a longer brochure), check out MagCloud, which enables you to print your own magazines from a pdf for as little as 20 cents per page. I've been thinking about revising Thinking Critically About Animal Rights, as I gave away the 1,000 I printed, and they were very, very expensive. Cost prohibitive in a major way and I'm not sure what I was thinking. They sure looked great, and the paper was fabulous, but I won't even tell you how much they cost because you'll mock me for the rest of my natural life for doing something so stupid that wasn't even tax-deductible. (Though I'm not sure about that--it might have been--I'll find out next week. Been delaying going to the accountant as long as possible.)

So all of you authors-in-waiting, start writing and publishing. We're all waiting to hear what you have to say!

Two New Peter Singer Interviews

First I have to again say that Peter Singer was influential in the veganization of Mary Martin: in my evolution from cat person to animal person during my college years.

For me and my delicate, cat-person sensibilities, college was a caustic, offensive world that compelled me to examine my relationship with animals wherever there was one, which turned out to be everywhere. And in case I forgot that tidbit of real life, or chose denial for a moment, there were plenty of belligerent, black boot-wearing, CBGB-going, no meat-eating, no drug-doing, Peter Singer-reading, pesky, activist types to remind me. 

Though I outwardly chided them for their distasteful techniques and relentless prodding, I credit them for the bulk of my transformation into an animal person. They thought it was their job to make everyone they came in contact with think about how their actions affected animals. They had perfected the art of raising awareness and educating potential animal people with learning tools including: pictures, trips to slaughterhouses (a.k.a., a one-way trip to vegetarianism), statistics, facts about how the animal industries abuse the earth, and of course, the names of famous people who are vegetarians (as a budding English major, I was particularly intrigued when they tossed out H.G. Wells, Henry David Thoreau, Mark Twain, Voltaire, and my personal crush, William Blake). They had something for everyone’s hot button.

I read Animal Liberation, probably in 1986, after already ceasing my use of animals, and what I recall as my aha moment was speciesism. I hadn't heard the word before and it helped me make sense of our relationship with sentient nonhumans in a different way.

Regardless of Singer's utilitarianism or his thoughts on infanticide or bestiality, no one can deny his impact on budding vegans and animal rights activists.

Both Shari Rudavsky's "Interview with Peter Singer" and Jill Owens' interview (at Powell's) are in promotion of his new book The Life You Can Save and its companion site www.thelifeyoucansave.com (where we learn that Singer is now on Twitter). I don't disagree with his premise, but it does smack of a pet peeve of mine: judging the philanthropy of others. Each of us is moved to address a unique combination of causes and issues, and I don't know if you can say that the 27,000 children who die, each day, from preventable, poverty-related causes are more important than (fill-in-your-cause), in point of fact. They're more important to Singer, but perhaps finding a cure for bone cancer is more important to you. Or combatting female genital mutilation. Or genocide.

I do agree that many of us can do without much of what we have and do in order to put a larger percentage of our disposable income toward charitable causes (and Singer proposes a very modest percentage allocated to extreme poverty, so it's tough to argue with that part of it). I'll read the book this weekend and give you some highlights/save you some time.

I like the way he talks about what we choose to do also makes a statement about what we choose not to do in this clip:

On the OED

I want to clarify the use of the OED, and I'll simply tell you what they say:

The Oxford English Dictionary is the accepted authority on the evolution of the English language over the last millennium. It is an unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of over half a million words, both present and past. It traces the usage of words through 2.5 million quotations from a wide range of international English language sources, from classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery books.

The OED covers words from across the English-speaking world, from North America to South Africa, from Australia and New Zealand to the Caribbean. It also offers the best in etymological analysis and in listing of variant spellings, and it shows pronunciation using the International Phonetic Alphabet.

As the OED is a historical dictionary, its entry structure is very different from that of a dictionary of current English, in which only present-day senses are covered, and in which the most common meanings or senses are described first. For each word in the OED, the various groupings of senses are dealt with in chronological order according to the quotation evidence, i.e. the senses with the earliest quotations appear first, and the senses which have developed more recently appear further down the entry. In a complex entry with many strands, the development over time can be seen in a structure with several 'branches'.

The function is to present the evolution of words--to tell you what they have meant, and not necessarily what they mean or how they are used in 2009 (there's lag time). Common usage is on our side here, as the more we define and use vegan (or whatever word) to mean X--in (for now, traditionally published) print--the greater the odds of vegan showing up as meaning X in the OED some day.

For greater appreciation of the OED and what it took to compile the first one, I highly recommend Simon Winchester's The Professor and the Madman.

On "Vegetarian" and "Vegan," OED-Style

Just when you thought I was going to stop talking about vegetarianism and veganism . . .

You might want to sit down for this one.

Vegetarian, the noun.

1. a. One who lives wholly or principally upon vegetable foods; a person who on principle abstains from any form of animal food, or at least such as is obtained by the direct destruction of life.

1839 F. A. KEMBLE Jrnl. Residence on Georgian Plantation (1863) 251 If I had had to be my own cook, I should inevitably become a vegetarian. 1842 Healthian Apr. 34 To tell a healthy vegetarian that his diet is very uncongenial with the wants of his nature. 1854 H. MILLER Sch. & Schm. (1858) 332 A man can scarce become a vegetarian even without also becoming in some measure intolerant of the still large..class that eat beef with their greens, and herrings with their potatoes. 1885 SALMON Introd. N.T. xi. 241 Even those who used animal food themselves came to think of the vegetarian as one who lived a higher life.

Let's go back to that definition. I don't think of veganism as a form of vegetarianism, but apparently that's because I'm not thinking about it properly. According to the definition, there are vegetarians, and they live principally upon vegetables and abstain from animal food obtained by the direct destruction of life, and there are strict vegetarians, who live wholly upon vegetable foods and abstain from any form of animal food. And what does that have to do with veganism?

Vegan  1. A person who on principle abstains from all food of animal origin; a strict vegetarian.

A vegan's a strict vegetarian? Yes, but I thought there was more to it than that. Perhaps the examples will help:

1944 D. WATSON in Vegan News Nov. 2 ‘Vegetarian’ and ‘Fruitarian’ are already associated with societies that allow the ‘fruits’ of cows and fowls, therefore..we must make a new and appropriate word... I have used the title ‘The Vegan News’. Should we adopt this, our diet will soon become known as the vegan diet, and we should aspire to the rank of vegans. 1945 Ibid. Feb. 3 Two members have asked how ‘Vegan’ is pronounced. Veegan, not Veejan. 1955 Irish Press 29 Nov. 618 A true-blue Vegan, I'm assured,..will even exclude from his or her diet, milk and..honey. 1965 New Scientist 20 May 526/3 Vitamin B12.. is found almost exclusively in animal foods, so that strict vegetarians (like vegans) may go short unless they take special precautions to ensure a supply. 1977 J. F. FIXX Compl. Bk. Running xiv. 170 There are..three kinds of vegetarians: the 100 percent vegetarian, sometimes called a vegan; the lacto-vegetarian..; and the lacto-ovo-vegetarian. 1979 J. I. M. STEWART Our England 177 Robin had discovered the duty of being a vegetarian. Indeed, he had become a vegan, and that seemed to mean that he could eat virtually nothing at all. 1985 Times 1 Feb. 12/2 ‘Beanmilk: milk that's never even seen a cow’ is to vegans, who deplore exploitation of animals and eat nothing derived from them, a highly desirable commodity.

That's a lot of talk about food, and not enough (any) talk of the distinction between strict vegetarianism and veganism.

On "Compassion," OED-Style

The irony in this one is rich. The original definition of compassion, which arrived on the scene in 1340, was:

"Suffering together with another, participation in suffering; fellow-feeling, sympathy."

And the secondary definition doesn't get much better:

"The feeling or emotion, when a person is moved by the suffering or distress of another, and by the desire to relieve it; pity that inclines one to spare or to succour."

Tertiary?

"Sorrowful emotion, sorrow, grief."

And as an aside, the March 2002 OED added something I've only heard for maybe two years:

compassion fatigue n. orig. U.S. apathy or indifference towards the suffering of others or to charitable causes acting on their behalf, typically attributed to numbingly frequent appeals for assistance, esp. donations; (hence) a diminishing public response to frequent charitable appeal.

The verb compassion has simply meant to pity.

Maybe compassionate will be more helpful, as so far compassion should definitely not be used when referring to, say, carnivores.

Compassionate, the adverb, isn't much consolation.

"Affected with, characterized by, or expressing compassion; pitiful, sympathetic."

"Displaying sorrowful emotion; sorrowfully lamenting; or moving pity, piteous."

We get closer with:

"Granted out of compassion, without legal or other obligation; of or pertaining to allowances, leave, etc., so granted."

With that one, you can say for instance that you don't have a legal obligation to not take calves from their mothers and chain them to crates, but you're going to not do that out of compassion, albeit a creative application of the word.

Compassionate the verb show up as:

"To regard or treat with compassion; to pity, commiserate (a person, or his distress, etc.)."

Here's an example:

1837 H. MARTINEAU Soc. Amer. III. 11 Countries whose political servitude the Americans justly compassionate.

Here's what we appear to have lost: commiserating, it's gone. In the 21st century compassionate isn't expressing sympathy with, but perhaps sympathy for, and even that is questionable as if you feel genuinely terrible about the plight of animals used for food, you don't go out of your way to create a system that still uses them for food. No. You stop using them for food.

Unless of course you have an ulterior motive, such as "My ability to continue to eat them shall not be compromised."

And then you realize that all of the talk of "compassionate" is a marketing ploy and a way to rationalize continuing to use animals for your own gain.

On "Humane," OED-Style

This one's for Justin, who was curious about the history of "humane" via the Oxford English Dictionary. The page isn't long so I can paste the entire thing, references and all. If you just read the references chronologically, without the definitions, you get a feel for the evolution of the word.

1. Characterized by such behaviour or disposition towards others as befits a man.  

     a. Gentle or kindly in demeanour or action; civil, courteous, friendly, obliging. Obs. (passing gradually into b.)

c1500 Melusine xx. 111 Be meke, humble, swete, curtoys & humayne, both vnto grete & lesse. 1530 PALSGR. 316/1 Humayne, courtoyse or belongyng to the nature of a man, humayn. 1555 EDEN Decades 149 Thinhabitauntes enterteined them very frendly [margin Humane people]. 1632 LITHGOW Trav. IX. 387 The people are very humane, ingenious, eloquent and pleasant. 1675 MARVELL Corr. Wks. 1872-5 II. 489 Humane civility. 1784 COWPER Task v. 469 That humane address And sweetness.

    b. Marked by sympathy with and consideration for the needs and distresses of others; feeling or showing compassion and tenderness towards human beings and the lower animals; kind, benevolent. (In early use not clearly distinguishable from a.)

1603 HOLLAND Plutarch's Mor. 1270 As his martiall valour is humane [], so his humanitie is valorous. a1774 PEARCE Serm. IV. xiv. (R.), Christianity (the most compassionate and humane religion in the world). 1802 M. EDGEWORTH Moral T. I. xv. 124 The humane spirit of the law, which supposes every man..innocent till proved.. guilty. 1814 D. H. O'BRIEN Captiv. & Escape 79 The jailer here..was the most humane man in that situation I ever knew. 1841 TRENCH Parables viii. (1877) 159 It is just in man to be merciful..to be humane is human. 1857 BUCKLE Civiliz. I. viii. 480 The humane and enlightened measures of Henry IV.

    c. Humane Society: title of a society for the rescue of drowning persons.
  The Royal Humane Society was founded in 1774.

1776 Minutes Soc. Recov. Persons app. drowned 8 May, That this Society in future be distinguished by the name of ‘The Humane Society’. 1782 R. A. BROMLEY (title) Sermon for the benefit of the Humane Society, on Luke viii. 52. 1784-95 W. HAWES (title) The Transactions of the Royal Humane Society, from 1774 to 1784, with an Appendix. 1819 BYRON Juan I. cxxx, The apparatus Of the Humane Society's beginning. 1834 MEDWIN Angler in Wales I. 219 The men of the Humane Society..came hurrying, with their apparatus for resuscitation. 1896 V. HUNT in Cosmopolis Sept. 617, ‘I chose the darkest place, farthest from the Humane Society's drags’.

    d. Applied to certain weapons or implements which inflict less pain than others of their kind, spec. applied to an implement for the painless slaughtering of cattle.

1904 Daily Chron. 24 May 5/3 The doctors style the bullets ‘humane’. 1920 Act 10 & 11 Geo. V c. 43 §(8) (h) Any..butcher..having in his possession..any humane killer for the purpose of such business. 1927 Daily Express 6 Aug. 7/3 That the humane killer was a dangerous instrument to those who used it. 1973 Times 11 Jan. 2/6 Three veterinary surgeons..had thought he must be put down. This was done..using a humane killer.
   

 2. Applied to those branches of study or literature (literæ humaniores) which tend to humanize or refine, as the ancient classics, rhetoric, and poetry; hence, elegant, polite. (See HUMANITY 4.)

1691 WOOD Ath. Oxon. I. 269 Edward Grant..the most noted Latinist and Grecian of his time. He was well skill'd in all kind of humane literature. 1701 tr. Le Clerc's Prim. Fathers (1702) 174 To learn Humane Learning; that is to say, to understand the Greek Poets and Orators and to write well in that Tongue. 1712 HENLEY Spect. No. 396 2 An uncommon Mastery in the more humane and polite Part of Letters. 1843 LYTTON Last Bar. IV. v, Thou art acquainted, doubtless..with the Humaner Letters. 1877 SYMONDS Renaiss. in Italy, Reviv. Learning ii. 71 note, The word Humanism has a German sound, and is in fact modern. Yet the generic phrase umanità for humanistic culture, and the name umanista for a professor of humane studies, are both pure Italian.

And while I'm at it, "humanely" is " In a humane manner; courteously (obs.); kindly, compassionately, benevolently." So courteous has transitioned to compassionate, which has gone through significant changes since the 1500s, and I'll detail them tomorrow.

"Violence" OED-Style

By popular request, here are some highlights of what the OED says about violence as a noun:

 1. a. The exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on, or cause damage to, persons or property; action or conduct characterized by this; treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom.

This one was first recorded in 1290 and continues into the late 1800s.

b. In the phr. to do violence to, unto (or with indirect object): To inflict harm or injury upon; to outrage or violate. Also to make violence.

Make violence? Never heard that one. But it began appearing in 1300 and shows up here and there until 1860.

    c. In weakened sense: Improper treatment or use of a word; wresting or perversion of meaning or application; unauthorized alteration of wording.

Example: 1749 FIELDING Tom Jones IV. vi, A passion which might without any great violence to the word, be called love.

   3. Force or strength of physical action or natural agents; forcible, powerful, or violent action or motion (in early use freq. connoting destructive force or capacity).

Beginning with Chaucer in 1384 and continuing through 1895 with: Law Times Rep. LXXIII. 156/2 Two vessels..drifted through the violence of a storm on to the toe of a breakwater.

 4. a. Great force, severity, or vehemence; intensity of some condition or influence.

 5. Vehemence of personal feeling or action; great, excessive, or extreme ardour or fervour; also, violent or passionate conduct or language; passion, fury.

Example: 1604 SHAKES. Oth. II. i. 224 Marke me with what violence she first lou'd the Moore.

And now for violence, the verb:

1. trans. To do violence to; to violate.

Beginning in 1612 and continuing throughout the 17th century.

2. To compel or constrain; to force (a person) to or from a place, etc., or to do something, by violence.

Interesting example: 1648 SYMMONS Vind. Chas. I 296 They have done what they could to violence him from his Religion.

There's also "violencing," from the above definition, which is now obsolete, and here's an example: 1649 HAMMOND Chr. Oblig., etc. 68 A kind of constraining and violencing of the spirit.

"Violent" is also interesting, but I have to run so I'll post it later this afternoon.

I hope some of the above was interesting/helpful.

OED Thursday: "Dog"

I believe it was kelly g who wanted to know about "dog" according to the OED. The tertiary definition is:

 "Applied to a person;    a. in reproach, abuse, or contempt: A worthless, despicable, surly, or cowardly fellow."

The first instance of this was way back in 1325. Shakespeare even later used it (1591, 1596), and so did Tennyson (1880).

I was surprised to see, directly following the above:

   b. playfully (usually in humorous reproof, congratulation, or commiseration): A gay or jovial man, a gallant; a fellow, ‘chap’. Usually with adj. such as cunning, jolly, lucky, sad, sly, etc. to be dog at: see to be old dog at.

That's new to me and the usage begins in 1618 and continues to the 1900s.

There's also:

    e. An informer; a traitor; esp. one who betrays fellow criminals. U.S. and Austral. slang.

That one was from 1846-1969.

One you've likely heard, and is unique to the 20th century (and into the 21st)  is: 

    f. Something poor or mediocre; a failure. U.S. slang.

I've always wondered about "dogs" used to mean "feet." Well it turns out that's short for "dog's meat" and was seen first in 1924 ("You'll pick up your dogs and run around  . . . .")

Oddly, a horse can be a dog, as a horse that is slow and difficult to handle, at least in the 20th century, can be known as a dog. " A ‘dog’ means a horse who cannot be relied upon to do his best..a horse may be a ‘dog’ because there is something wrong with him." At least they didn't say "it."

There are many phrases and proverbs that refer to dogs in one way or another, including:

• to the dogs
• thrown to the dogs 
• to die like a dog 
• the hair of the dog that bit you 
• to see a man about a dog 
• dog-eat-dog 
• like a dog with two tails (that means very pleased, if you were wondering) 

Now, as of September 2007, the following was added:

 * slang (derogatory, usu. considered offensive). orig. U.S. An unattractive woman or girl. Also (occas.): an unattractive man.

1937 J. WEIDMAN I can get It for You Wholesale xxi. 203, I don't like to have a bunch of dogs floating around. While I'm at it, I might as well hire something with a well-turned ass and a decently uplifted tit. 1948 I. SHAW Young Lions xix. 345 She had fat legs and the seams of her stockings were crooked, as always. Why is it, Lewis thought automatically, why is it the dogs are the ones that join up? 1968 C. F. BAKER et al. College Undergraduate Slang Study (typescript), Dog, an ugly person, male. An ugly person, female. 1997 Cosmopolitan (U.K. ed.) Aug. 66/1 Pretty well anyone could have stood next to the guys in Take That and looked like a dog. They were great-looking guys. 2003 K. CORUM Other Woman 20 ‘If she's a dog, I am going to be so pissed off at you.’ ‘Arthur, this is not a date.’ 

I had no idea "dog" was used in so many different ways. And that's just the nouns, and it excludes the obvious ones that actually have something to do with canines. Also, dog, as in to "hound" someone, and other verb-usages, has its own page.

I thought I'd get to at least one other word today, but alas . . . I'm already running late! Send me words, and on Thursdays I'll give you some highlights from the OED.

On Sentient Nonhumans and Language

It doesn't happen as often as it used to, but I still do get people who claim that we humans are exceptional because we have language. What they really mean is that we are entitled to do what we wish with the natural world and everyone else who lives on it because we have our language. (And by the way, sometimes our glorious language skills are more hindrance than help, but that's not today's topic.)

Perhaps, like me, you've read one of the many books about the communication of sentient nonhumans (or at least that features it), such as those by Jeffrey Masson or Mark Bekoff or Jonathan Balcombe. Other species are communicating--through verbalization--just fine; we simply haven't figured out exactly what they're saying to each other. Anyone with a cat or dog knows how hard they try to get us to understand their language, and they do achieve some level of success. They clearly have awareness of wanting something or having a need and setting out to tell us what that is so we may be of service (for example).

However, there are people who still believe that what nonhumans do is really some kind of involuntary articulation or vocalization, and for them I suggest (thanks to my mom) something I don't get to see because I have only one cat (the death-machine/FIP carrier, Emily), and the feral cats of Project Treadstone don't make a sound . . .

On Sentience

A new person e-mailed me (new to e-mailing me, not to reading Animal Person) and said he finds himself eating very little "meat" since reading! Congratulations, New Person!

He doesn't know if he will ever become a vegan but he does have a question about sentience: What does it mean? He alludes to things like consciousness, the avoidance of pain and "intelligence," and wants to know where the line is drawn. He also asks about roadkill and whether it is permissible.

I just found three different (but not vastly different) definitions of sentience in the first three books I searched, by Index, on the bookshelf closest to me. The most basic definitions usually center on the biological ability to experience pain. Then they expand to pleasure and pain and (not necessarily in this order) to the awareness of such things, and then on to what I like to include: boredom and frustration. That's for all the folks who think there's nothing objectionable about keeping animals in cages for decades as you are treating them "humanely."

Intelligence is explicitly not required. Sentience is about the ability to suffer (/feel pleasure, etc...). In 2008, there are no reputable scientists, as far as I know, who claim that nonhuman mammals, birds, reptiles or fish are not capable of suffering. I go to one of my favorite scholars on the subject: Jonathan Balcombe, from Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good.

"And while it may be difficult to assign sentience to invertebrates it should not be so with our more familiar cousins in the pantheon of life, the vertebrates. These creatures all have nervous systems, a suite of senses by which to perceive their worlds, and they all move about. Evolution has endowed each with the tools for avoiding pains and perils, and for securing rewards.
    We must put aside the prejudices we hold towards other creatures. They are built on two thousand years of pious presumption that humans are the chosen ones, inexorably walled-off from all the others. Nourished by the inescapable knowledge that we are evolutionarily continuous with the other beasts, we are now realizing--from scientific study and empathic observation--that ours is a planet rich with other minds and experiences.
    We can never actually share the mental experience of another creature, including another human. . . . . To deny animals conscious experiences is to deny that they plan, desire, anticipate, tease, grieve, enjoy, tolerate, and gauge. It is to reject that they make decisions" (63).

Balcombe's discussion about why we humans deny that fish and "certain members of the invertebrate horde, might be able to feel good" (185), is very helpful for anyone with a relative who hunts fish or who eats fish. And for a book full of fantastic examples of behaviors in nonhumans that we like to think are unique to us, check out Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson's Altruistic Armadillos, Zenlike Zebras: A Menagerie of 100 Favorite Animals.

Tomorrow I'll address the dicier aspects of New Person's query (though you're welcome to do so now, of course, in addition to commenting about anything else regarding sentience). One thing is clear from all definitions of sentience, and that is that the vast majority of nonhumans we have come to view as/use as "food," are likely feeling every bit of the misery you'd be feeling if you were in their position. And that includes the terror that results from being stalked and hunted. And being wounded and released or being able to escape wounded, perhaps with a bullet or arrow or hook lodged in you.  And that includes being ripped from your family, being imprisoned, being enslaved, and having your worth defined only by someone else's plans for you. And those plans involve your death on their schedule.

On Steve Best and Norm Phelps

Steve Best reviewed Norm Phelps in the Journal for Critical Animal Studies (check it out here, and also check out the article on humane education). Shortly thereafter, Phelps e-mailed Best regarding that review, and so began months of e-mail exchanges between two men who have a lot in common but disagree on some very important points.

What was fascinating for me in their e-mails, which they have posted at Thomas Paine's Corner, is that I don't completely agree with either of them. If you've read Animal Person for a while, you probably know that I have a difficult time blaming capitalism for the misery that has befallen animals or humans. I see more of a problem with human nature than any political or economic or religious system or institution. Even with the current economic crisis, I don't blame capitalism, per se, although free-marketer/Friedmanites definitely put us on a certain course. But it was the people who were the problem, in my mind. They see an opening/something they can get away with, and they jump in. The circumstance may have been ripe for it, but they didn't have to do it--the circumstance didn't make them do it.

Phelps writes:

To put it bluntly, we enslave and murder animals because it is in our self-interest to do so and we have the power to get away with it, not because of capitalism, liberal democracy, the Judeo-Christian dominionist tradition, or any of the other reasons so commonly given. These are merely after-the-fact justifications. We enslave and murder animals because we can and we enjoy the results. Change the political or economic system, and that fundamental fact will still be operative, and the enslavement and murder of animals will continue unaffected except that it will now be justified by a different set of theories, one that is compatible with the new system. During the 20th century, animals, like people, suffered even more in the Communist East than they did in the capitalist West.

That being the case, changing the social or economic system without first changing the moral standing of animals in the public consciousness would make no difference in the lives of animals. Once the animals have caught up with humans in this regard, then changes in the social, political, or economic system could have beneficial effects for them—depending, of course, on the nature of those changes.

I highly recommend reading the exchange.

On the Seemingly Silly Questions I Ask

I've asked what you read (/if you read) as a child, if your parents or any other grown-ups were vegan, whether you had an affinity for animals, and what I'm looking for in probably the most inefficient, ineffective way possible, is a pattern.

In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell describes patterns that led to certain successes (or not, such as a spate of plane crashes, or plane crashes in general). The commonalities and patterns are different from what you might think (such as the oft-given example of what the top hockey players in Canada have in common . . . they were born in January, February or March . . . and were more mature and larger than the kids born at the end of the year. It's far more complex and I recommend reading the book).

I don't think we're being as conceited as we are accused of being when we say that our moral development is more advanced than others. (Do you?) But the outlier question is: why? What is it about us, or what was it about our childhoods, or maybe what was it about our parents, or maybe what is it about our culture that makes us this way?

Where's the pattern? It appears that it has something to do with allowing for something other than what is acceptable in the mainstream. What makes certain Americans from various socio-economic backgrounds, with varying degrees of affection for nonhumans and varying interest in reading at an early age and coming from homes steeped in both major parties, feel compelled to seek nonviolence and social justice by opting out of significant parts of what America calls tradition?

Critical thinking is an important element here, and maybe it's the answer. At some point, we said: Why would we do something that hurts someone else just because everyone around us does it? We don't have the same obedience to authority and deference to culture for the sake of it.

But why? Where does that come from?

Certainly not from formal education or field of study, as Richard Dawkins demonstrates. His work against the mainstream in one area is commendable (speaking out against religion and god), but then his odd statements such as that he doesn't have "the level of social courage necessary" to stop eating animals though he thinks we should, is frustrating. He admits he's in a difficult moral position and would rather everyone stop and then he'll stop. So he spends years fighting one thing the majority does, yet doesn't have the "social courage" to fight the one that could save billions of lives? What? (And here's the transcript from a talk Dawkins gave, where Singer asked him about animals. It's enough to knock Dawkins off any pedestal. Quite frankly, it's pathetic.)

If vegan education were the answer to duplicating our success as vegans, we'd have a lot more vegans. But some people, as we all know, listen intently to what we have to say, read our pamphlets, watch Gary Francione's slideshows, and even watch some of Earthlings, and still aren't moved enough/interested enough to change their lives.

Why is that?

If we can get to what made us receptive, then maybe there's a way to reproduce that in others.

Any ideas?

On Vegan Filmmakers and John Perkins

What do vegan filmmakers have to do with John Perkins, of Confessions of an Economic Hitman-fame? Nothing, other than I received messages from both yesterday (and you may have, as well).

On Monday . . . .

the first fan-managed, motion picture studio, Green Light Flix announced that it is now recruiting 50,000 vegetarians and vegans to join their "Producers Club." Blending activism and entertainment, Green Light Flix members help develop and produce media, such as feature films, videos, podcasts, webisodes, and more. 

"Vegetarians, animal rights activists and environmentalists have a very rare and often negative represen t at i on in cinema and television. Our mission is to change that. We want to show activists in a positive light while entertaining and educating audiences," said Dawn Black, co-founder of Green Light Flix.

Green Light Flix fills a critical gap in the entertainment industry. For the first time, a community of environmentalists, animal rights activists, and vegetarians will be able to help choose, promote and have an impact on media that appeal to them. Fans get the opportunity to discover new storytellers while getting insider access and VIP perks for their contributions. 

"There are millions of vegetarians and vegans around the world, and many of us are insulted by being portrayed in films and TV shows as pale, 85 pound hippies that look sickly and need a murdered f arm animal's carcass and dairy products to feel better," said Scott Cardinal, GreenLight Flix co-founder and Director of Development. "Environmentalists and animal rights activists are usually portrayed as kooks, too. Imagine heroic films like 'Rocky,' dramatic films like 'The Breakfast Club,' romantic comedies like 'Serendipity,' and more --- except the main characters are obviously animal rights activists and vegetarians or vegans. That is what we plan to do. The positive examples would do more to promote our positive lifestyle than all the horrific slaughterhouse videos on You Tube." 

Green Light Flix' 2009 slate includes "V-Day," a forward-thinking documentary about what the world would be like in the future if everyone was vegan; "GreEntreprenuer," which is interviews with owners of earth-friendly businesses; "Guy Going Green," about a 355 lb. man changing his life for the better; a series of cooking DVDs; and a few dramas and comedies with characters that are admirable animal rights activists, vegetarians, vegans, and environmentalists. 

"Producing and distributing feature films and videos can be a great form of activism. Finally, animal rights, vegetarian, vegan and eco activists have an opportunity to join in on this while supporting the causes they believe in," claims Board Advisor Steve Silberberg.

The projects are financed by Membership dues which turn Fans into Producers and investors. Once the productions are done, Limited Edition DVDs are distributed to those same Member whose annual dues financed them. Memberships start at $25 a year. Members will help make major business decisions including logo design, web design, film development, marketing and distribution, etc. Members will also receive VIP perks, such as a free member T-shirt, DVDs, 25% off all products, and more. Green Light Flix will donate 10% of net profits to animal rescue, rights, welfare organizations selected by its members.

"Many animal rights groups produce footage of slaughterhouses and animal cruelty, which most people do not want to watch. While this information needs to be made public so people can learn the truth, we also need positive videos showing what the world could be like without dependence on animal products. Green Light Flix will do that, and we are excited to support them." said Jodi Chemes, VP Youth Outreach, Florida Voices for Animals.

 

 

To learn more about Green Light Flix or to become a member, please visit www.GreenLightFlix.com

And from John Perkins . . .

Dear Friends,

The new year will be a truly momentous one. Economic crises. New US president. Radically changing world. You are an essential agent of change.

Let's keep in mind the following:

For the first time in history

- every sentient being is experiencing the same crises of global warming, economic trauma, diminishing resources, vanishing species, violence due to desperation. 

- we are all communicating with each other through the internet and cell phones - less than 5% of the world's population lives in the US and consumes more than 25% of the planet's resources

- geopolitics is controlled by those who run the biggest corporations (the corporatocracy); governments serve as their vehicles, not the other way around- corporations are totally dependent on us to buy their goods and services

- we the people, the consumers, hold the power to determine which corporations will succeed and which will fail; the marketplace is democratic if we choose to see it as such.

After Obama's election, I received emails from around the world congratulating the US for having the ability to change so rapidly: from a conservative White Republican 4 years ago to a liberal Black Democrat. Many reminded me that Obama keeps emphasizing that there are great challenges ahead and we all must work for change.

We All Must Work for Change!

As you do your holiday shopping realize that every time you buy something (or decide not to) you are casting a vote. It you do not purchase goods made in sweat shops, there will be no more sweat shops (or the current ones will be turned into legitimate factories where workers receive fair wages, health care, and retirement pensions). When you refuse to buy from companies like Nike because they use sweat shops, send them an email telling them so. Check out www.sweatfree.org/shoppingguide and let those companies know why you patronize them. Little steps like that will change the world. Seem simple? It is – in principle. But you MUST participate.

Every indigenous culture tells us that we are entering a period with the potential for changing human consciousness, for creating a sustainable, just, and peaceful world. But it will not be automatic. We must make it happen.

You must commit yourself to change!

Season's Greetings. Happy New Year!

With love,

John

Now, Perkins' letter is definitely preaching to the choir, and the idea of changing the world through consumerism definitely has its flaws, but I'm still a supporter of using your dollars for change. Though I prefer donations, many people don't give to even one organization I'd give to, and I'm not about to support an organization I don't support just because it's a gift. Instead, I'll buy a gift. I go to places like Ten Thousand Villages to see if there's anything appropriate (and vegan), and now I'll use the above shopping guide, as well. 

Finally, due to these difficult economic times--and even in not-so-tough times--I like to give gift cards to movie theaters. It's $10 per adult to see a film in the evening, and many people have had to cut their entertainment budgets due to their financial situations. Many people are becoming increasingly isolated, depressed and anxious. Something simple as getting out of the house and being around people helps bring back a sense of normalcy. A gift certificate to a vegan restaurant is great, too--particularly for those folks who think they can't go vegan because they can't imagine the food tasting good. These days, we need all the help we can get--vegans and omni's alike.