This following excerpt from Douglas Adams' Restaurant at the End of the Universe perfectly describes the hypocrisy inherent to carnivores that pretend to keep up an ethical appearance, and openly show their disgust when forced to meet their meat face to face, but immediately fall into the bliss of ignorance when the slaughter goes away and hides. In this piece of text the protagonist and Earthling, Arthur Dent, is brought to a restaurant by Zaphod Beeblebrox, the two-headed, three-armed president of the Galaxy. Much to this Earthling's surprise, tonight's meal comes to life and greets its prospective predators as a friendly waiter:
---
A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox's table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips. "Good evening," it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, "I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in parts of my body?" It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters into a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them. ... "Something off the shoulder, perhaps?" suggested the animal. "Braised in a white wine sauce?" "Er, your shoulder?" said Arthur in a horrified whisper. "But naturally my shoulder, sir," mooed the animal contentedly, "nobody's else's is mine to offer." "What's the problem, Earthman?" said Zaphod. ... "I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing there inviting me to," said Arthur. "It's heartless." "Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten," said Zaphod. ... "Look," said Zaphod, "we want to eat, we don't want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare stakes please, and hurry. ..." "A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good," it said. "I'll just nip off and shoot myself." He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur. "Don't worry, sir," he said, "I'll be very humane." It waddled unhurriedly off to the kitchen.
--- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. New York: Ballantine Books, 1995, pp. 115-117.
My favorite line from this wonderful conversation is probably Zaphoid's response (to Arthur's comment about it being "heartless" to eat this animal) that it's "better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten." This dialogue as a whole really sums up and pokes fun at the ethical position of meat eaters who are ready to accept slaughter, as long as it is done "humanely" - and is also a great and literal fable about meeting your meat, realizing that it is a sentient being, and the subsequent complex emotions involved with the understanding that you are the direct reason for this creature's untimely death.
A simple search on BBC News for the story of the Australian orangutan who managed to escape her cage by short-circuiting the electric fence (by jamming a stick into the wire), led to an amalgam of BBC videos of runaway animals doing "funny", "human" stuff.. like bursting into supermarkets and riding in cars.
Here are a few links to some of these hilarious videos of wild animals going wild:
The sad story of the orangutan who managed to escape and then returned to her cage, the outside world probably seeming too strange and alien for someone accustomed to prison all her life, can be seen here.
These videos seemingly have no real news value at all - they are simply put up there as funny anecdotes about human-animal relationships, where animals cross the line into our designated zones. Indeed, these are the sort of videos that you can easily find on YouTube, and it seems interesting to me that the BBC has so many of them online. Go to any one of them and you'll be led into a maze of many more.
I'm not really sure what to make of these videos. For one thing, they are seemingly there purely for entertainment value - more reminiscent of that terribly annoying show, The World's Funniest Animals on Animal Planet (which I'm sure I'll write about in great detail some day), than any sort of real journalism. There is no message there, it's just the spectacle of seeing an animal going out of its place, transgressing the human boundary, or leaving its designated role behind (i.e. escaped apes and runaway horses). In some instances it is a clear example of animal cruelty (transporting a cow by car?) and others it's simply a matter of seeing a cute animal (i.e. the cat that drops by the weatherman's set) or an animal doing seemingly human things (i.e. that silly, shoplifting seagull that steals a packet of crisps). A quick look at the choice of words describing the piece about the bull in the supermarket really defines the attitude towards the animals that pervades these sort of stories. The bull was at a market (read = going to be sold into slavery? slaughter?) and managed to escape, fleeing into a supermarket where he became confused, terrified, thus terrifying the employees, and eventually made it back out again. According to the BBC, the bull did "some "on the hoof" shopping", "paying a visit to the Cummins' SuperValu" and eventually "leaving for pastures greener". The derogatory and patronizing phrasing really says it all.
If there is any larger theme, it is one of animals trying to break free, and many of these videos seem very sad to me. The orangutan is a prime example. But also the deer running through the beer shop - take a look at that video and see how frightened and utterly confused they are, bumping into things all over. Where did these deer come from? Immediately, a contextual story begins to form in my mind. But there is nothing else in the news item - no more details - nothing but the mildly interesting, but seemingly unimportant, fact that some animals, at least for a little while, didn't behave like they were supposed to.
PIG no. 05049 was only one of millions of pigs slaughtered for human consumption, but this pig stands out from the rest because he had a different kind of afterlife.
Well, that's not entirely true - his afterlife was really the same as all the other pigs - but this one got the added bonus of being thoroughly documented by artist Christien Meinderstsma. The following text comes off the artist's website, describing the project:
Christien Meindertsma has spent three years researching all the products made from a single pig. Amongst some of the more unexpected results were: Ammunition, medicine, photo paper, heart valves, brakes, chewing gum, porcelain, cosmetics, cigarettes, conditioner and even bio diesel.
Meindertsma makes the subject more approachable by reducing everything to the scale of one animal. After it's death, Pig number 05049 was shipped in parts throughout the world. Some products remain close to their original form and function while others diverge dramatically. In an almost surgical way a pig is dissected in the pages of the book - resulting in a startling photo book where all the products are shown at their true scale (1:1).
(The following graph is an overview of all the product numbers included in the book, arranged by physical origin from the pig.)
PIG 05049 is a remarkable book, consisting of precise measurements, with all sorts of graphs and tables, of all the pig parts that are used by us humans. The artist then follows every direction where the animal parts go, with a short description and photographs of each item. The amount of things that have bits of pig are astounding: the book showcases 185 products that have parts of this single, slaughtered pig.
For anyone who's interested in veganism, this should come as no surprise. It is quite easy to get lists and tables of all the different sorts of products and chemicals that include animal derivatives, but to see it presented in such a visual way is amazing stuff. It is a mesmerizing book and truly a work of art, making our understanding of the large role animals play in consumer society crystal clear.
This clearly dispels the myth that animal bodies are not put to the same use as they were in olden times. But there is a clear-cut difference between the farming societies of old - putting every piece of skin, meat and bone to good use - and the end-products of today's market. In the foreword, after discussing the old ways of farming using Sicily as an example, Lucas Verweij writes about the difference of the new and old markets:
The overseeable scale of a Sicilian village has been replaced by an unfathomable world scale. The food industry has rapidly become more refined than the centuries-old Sicilian traditions. This frugality goes hand in hand with far-reaching globalisation.
The scale of one pig, which is the unit used in this book, has long been forgotten as the scale at which to trade. This is because, on the scale of one pig, it makes no sense to seperate out a few milligrams of black pigment, gelatin or collagen. It only makes sense if you are dealing with tens or hundreds of pigs every day.
... or, rather, hundreds of thousands?
So with mass murder comes mass production. How else could we get 185 items out of a single pig?
(The following image shows a "FINE BONE CHINA FIGURINE" (from BONEs -> BONE ASH) and includes this description: Bone ash is aded to fine bone china to achieve a high degree of strength and translucency. Amongst other things, it is used for making hand painted figurines.)
Meindertsma has used animals in her art before, also focusing on the utility of a single animal, in a piece called One Sheep Cardigan. There she used the whole amount of wool taken from a single sheep and made a single cardigan out of it. The results, needless to say, were of different shapes and sizes, according to the individual wool donors.
More information on Meindertsma and her work can be found on her official website.
Also, a fine interview about the PIG 05049 project can be read here.
Finally, it should be noted that the book was supported by an organization called IMAGRO - Strategy and creativity for the agricultural and food industries - and includes the following message from them:
We hope this book will serve as a contribution to our original mission: reduce the gap between producer and consumer. We do this not out of sentimental reasons, but on the basis of our core values. This led us to support Christien Meindertsma in regard to her art project.
(The following image shows a "DEEP FRIED NOSE" (from MISCELLANEOUS -> HEAD) and includes this description: Deep fried pig nose is given to dogs as a snack.)
Tippi Degré is a French girl, born June 4th 1990, who grew up in Namibia among wild animals and tribespeople. Her childhood was spent playing with animals that most people would not dare to approach in the wild, but somehow her childish innocence, naiveté or courage - whatever you want to call it - gave her the opportunity to connect with these animals in a very unique way.
Her parents were working in Africa as wildlife photographers, which is the reason why she was able to become friends with all of the animal subjects. The pictures that exist of her playing with other animals are quite amazing. Here are a few examples:
More pictures can be seen here. They almost seem like something out of a Hallmark or Disney movie - quite unreal. Indeed, I'm having a hard time believing parts of this Tippi story. I'll have to keep an eye out for more stuff about this wild child of Africa... Tippi also has an official website, which seems not to have been updated for nine years (at least not the English part).
Books have been published and documentaries made about her adventures - the most famous being the book Tippi of Africa: The Little Girl Who Talks to the Animals. She is now 19 years old, living in Paris, trying to get used to regular city life. The following trailer is from a documentary made a couple of years ago in the attempt to "bridge the gap" between the wildlife of Africa and the TV-audience of the West:
PS: I first heard about Tippi from a guy who was sitting at my table in a vegan kitchen/restaurant, where I was alone, eating and reading Timothy Treadwell's Among Grizzlies. The book sparked a discussion of humans and animals living together, which led to him telling me about the famous Tippi. He was a little younger than me and recalled having seen all these pictures when he was growing up - and really envying her too.
The Belgian city of Ghent has decided to go vegetarian every Thursday - how rare! According to BBC News, "there will be a regular weekly meatless day, in which civil servants and elected councillors will opt for vegetarian meals."
This is not done for the animals' sake, but rather to promote healthy living and recognize the impact of livestock on the global environment: "The UN says livestock is responsible for nearly one-fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, hence Ghent's declaration of a weekly "veggie day"."
Public officials will start off the vegetarian trend, hoping for others to follow suit. Maps with information on vegetarian restaurants - "veggie street maps" - have been published and distributed to the public. The goal is for the city to have an effect on the environment and tackle obesity.
Yet again, animals are served by the self-interests of humans, and even though it's a shame that no mention is made of animal exploitation as a specific issue, there is always cause to celebrate when a little progress is made. This will, hopefully, make less of a demand for meat in that area, thus reducing the number of animals bred for slaughter, and possibly even turn some people towards vegetarianism. Most importantly, though, it should give some people, who might be prejudiced against a vegetarian diet, a taste of some good, vegetarian food. I really hope that the vegetarian restaurants in Ghent are nice and that they make a strong impression on any first-timers.
After all, tasty vegetarian food is the first step in the struggle for animal rights.
Read the BBC article here and check out the official project website here.
Finally, my weekend trip brought me to a small town close to Utrecht, where I met up with a friend of mine who was taking part in a protest against one of the traveling circuses that are quite common during the summer. This was on a Sunday, and the day before they also had a protest. It had gone quite well, although there was quite a bit of hassling from the police, who wanted to "control" the protest (similarly to the one in Maastricht) and make sure the activists were kept in their proper place. They were only allowed to stay by the road and not by the actual circus entrance.
I arrived about 30 or 40 minutes before the final scheduled show and met up with my friend, along with four other protesters. They were all quite young - probably around 18 years old - up and coming activists, making me and my friend the seniors of the group. Most of the activists I've met here are usually around my age, few are older, and indeed it is more common for them to be younger. This is not necessarily the norm when it comes to activist causes. I spoke with a couple of ecological activists last week who told me that the animal rights cause seems to attract more of a younger crowd. Furthermore, they also told me that animal rights activists tend to dedicate pretty much all of their time to the cause, whereas others tend to be part of many different groups, spreading their energy around.
This circus protest was very relaxed compared to the others I'd been to. No real shouting, no real aggression. We just put up a banner and gave away leaflets to the public. The police didn't even show up this time around. They drove by in a car (before I arrived) and spoke to the activists, sort of reminding them of everything they'd said the following day, and then just left them to it. Nevertheless, there were two men taking photos and filming everyone the whole time. They seemed to be part of the circus, but it was difficult to tell. Even though the police had told everyone the previous day to stay off the grass and on the road, seeing that they weren't there now, we began the demo on the grass, in front of the circus entrance. After a short while, one of the circus people came up and asked us to move, insinuating that they would contact the police if we didn't. So we did. Everything was very peaceful, it was a slow day for the circus I guess, and after the show had begun we just packed up and finished the demo. This can be seen in the first half of the video below.
The local (younger) activists took some leaflets and were going to spread them around on cars and bicycles, for people to read after the show. Me and my friend were going to take the train back to Utrecht. But before leaving, I wanted to walk around the circus to get some shots. My friend told me that if we'd go around the back, we could see some of the animals - including the elephant and a couple of tigers. These can be seen in the second half of the video below.
Before going on with the story, I need to clarify some details. When an activist group contacts the authorities to hold a demonstration, an agreement of sorts is entered into, where the two parties decide on a place (i.e. the circus park) and a timeframe. For this particular protest, the official timeframe for the demo was from 12.30 to 13.30. We packed up probably around 13.20 (since nothing was happening anymore and the show had already started) and went for a walk behind the circus. The demonstration was over. On the other side of the circus was a fence, dividing the circus park from the public park, which had a walk path through it. Many people were walking this path, admiring the animals they could see. These were mostly families and many of them took pictures. This was public space.
Now, we walked around for around 15 minutes. Truly I will admit that we gave out a few leaflets, but people weren't really receptive so we stopped doing that after a short while. Instead, I filmed the animals and got some very good shots. It needs to be stressed that we are standing in a public park, among other citizens, where we can only see what the circus thinks it is alright for the public to see. We are not peeking into any locked trucks or hidden corners, nor are we filming anything that would generally be accepted as animal cruelty (i.e. no direct violence) - simply what the circus people think is OK (namely, animals in cages). Therefore, when the police showed up, I did not expect them to be able to give us any hassling. We were perfectly within the frame of the public sphere and working within the realm of law-abiding citizens. Or so I thought.
When the police arrived, I turned off my camera. There were two policemen. One was loud and spoke a lot. The other was silent and rarely uttered a word. It was a sort of good cop/bad cop deal, I guess. The talkative one was the same one that had been hassling the demo the previous day. It is a little bit difficult to fully explain the cop's main arguments, because he seemed to be making up rules as he went along, until he finally talked himself into an inexplicable corner of illogic. Maybe that's why his partner remained silent. I am sure the talker must have realized that, in the end, he had stopped making sense - but then again, he is a figure of authority, and he can't back down on his words. I will do my best to describe the confrontation as truthfully as I can.
They told us that we were breaking rules and we could not film. We asked if this was a public space - they said yes - and therefore replied that we were fully in the right, just as these other people around, to stand here and film. No, we are not, the talker said, because we are protesters. His argument was, basically, that because the demonstration was set to end at 13.30 and it was now 13.45, we had broken a rule and were in trouble. When asked about what specific law we were breaking, he did not answer. He just said that we had broken the agreement. We replied that the demonstration was in fact over and now we were here simply as public citizens. We had no banners, we'd packed the leaflets away, we weren't protesting. We are just filming, looking and acting like any other normal citizens. This argument did not agree with the police, who were completely stuck on the fact that because we had been part of the demonstration, we were still part of the demonstration. To us, this made no sense, and it made even less sense when the talker explained that if we were to leave the premises, go home, change our clothes, and come back, we could film and do whatever we wanted! This somehow implies that in order to become members of the public again (and lose the label of "protesters"), we had to leave and get changed. This opened up a can of worms that we would have liked to argue about (i.e. how long do we need to stay away? Is it ok if we go and switch clothes with each other?) but, unfortunately, something else came up that made arguing pretty much out-of-the-question.
They asked for our ID. Generally, they can't do this without proper reason, but in the mind of the talker he had good reason to do that. We had "broken a rule" (although neither of us was clear on what precisely that rule was) and he threatened to take us to the station. My friend showed his ID (the first time he's ever been asked for ID in Holland), but in a very very very stupid move, I had forgotten my ID at home. This is very very very stupid, because in Holland it is the law that everyone must be able to present their ID if they are asked for it. Otherwise, there's a heap of trouble and a very hefty fine. I became afraid that I would have to spend the day at the police station. They took my friend a few steps away to ask him my name, then asked me my name, to see if either of us was lying. Then they asked for my full name, birth date and country of origin. Expecting to be taken in to the station, where they would find out this information anyway, I told them the truth. So now I guess I am in their filing system as well.
Then something new entered the conversation, which took us both by total surprise. The talker, seemingly getting into a bit of a power trip, now told me that I had to erase everything on the tape, or he would take my tape away from me. My friend made a phone call to find out if they had any authority to do this, only to find out that (surprise surprise) they did not. This was a total breach of my public freedom. But, the problem was that I truly did not have my ID and that was a very real problem. I was in no position to argue with this policeman. It became clear to me what they were doing, so I simply asked them straight out: Are you saying that either I erase the tape and you let me go, or I refuse to erase it and you bring me in because I don't have my ID? The answer was yes. "That sounds a lot like blackmail," my friend replied. They did not answer.
To make things even more complex, the owner of the elephant now showed up to argue with us. She said that even though she did not have a problem with our protests, she thought we could do more good elsewhere. She told us not to put all circuses under the same hat - not everyone treats the animals badly. She pointed to "her" elephant and she pointed to her son, and said that they were her babies and she would never hurt her baby! Indeed, if someone else would try that, she would gladly kill them to defend her baby! I would've liked to discuss the matter with her in more detail, but the police officers were getting more and more anxious to finish this matter of the tape.
Being in no position to make demands, as I really did not want to be taken in because of the ID, I told them I would comply. However, I was filming on tape - not digitally - so I could not erase it simply by pressing a button. I had to record over it. So I rewound the tape to the beginning, showed the policeman that it was at the beginning, and then hit REC. Now came the big surprise. The talker said that he did not want to stay around all day, so he asked if he could trust me to be adult enough to erase it. Of course! So eventually they left, with the empty threat that if this footage would show up in a movie or on TV, then they knew where to find me and I would be in trouble. Balls! I guess the talker knew deep down inside that he had nothing on us, was in no position to blackmail me to erase the footage, and really crowned himself by saying that we could fix everything by going away and changing clothes. In the end, I recorded over about two minutes of footage, but the rest can be seen below for all to enjoy. And please, do see for yourself how dangerous this footage is!
In addition, the final two minutes include the footage I recorded with the lens shut off, so you can hear a little bit of the discussion with the talker - including me saying that I thought we would become public citizens again when the protest ended, and the talker saying that no - that is not the rule! He can also be heard saying that we should go home and change clothes, as well as threatening me not to make this recording public. Finally, early on you can also hear a little bit of the elephant woman talking about her baby.
All in all, it was a good protest, but a stressful event. Everything worked out in the end and two new lessons were learned (I won't put power-tripping policeman as being a lesson learned... that should come as no surprise!): One: always bring your ID to a demonstration in Holland, and Two: the circus people are very nervous about animal rights protesters. We really did cause concern, since they felt threatened enough to have us removed from the premises.
So, in a way, it was a pretty successful day.
PS: Apologies for the spelling error in the town name at the beginning of the video. It is supposed to be Soest, not Soes...
I guess a discussion on the Maastricht visit should begin the night before I left Groningen, when I had drinks with some friends and met an Austrian girl that was also leaving early the next morning (on her way to Paris). By sheer coincidence, we met again on the train and sat together chatting for about an hour and a half. Eventually, of course, the conversation turned to vegetarianism. We discussed my project and I mentioned that I had heard about a group of neo-nazi / right-wing animal rights activists (more about them in a bit). This led us to a talk about Hitler and his supposed love for animals, his famous vegetarianism and his views against vivisection - all of which seem very ironic in light of what he was simultaneously doing to human beings (it should be noted that many have cast a doubt over Hitler's real-life vegetarianism, but the fact remains that this persona of an all-loving Führer was publicized in the Third Reich as part of the party's propaganda - so even if the basis is not real, the public image very definitely is). But my Austrian friend was ready to understand in a way how it is possible to create such a paradoxical mind-frame for oneself - by loathing humanity and loving animals. This means that you still view animals and humans as being divided by a gap - they are not the same animal, or, possibly human beings are a sort of corrupted animal, that has lost its "pure" and "natural" way of life. For someone like Hitler, growing up with a hatred for mankind, preaching for a race of perfect Aryan people - a group to which he himself did not belong, and he was probably well aware of the fact - it would seem reasonable, within his frame of logic, to consider animals as being part of that perfect world. They are pure beings, unspoiled, and above humanity. To Hitler, they belong to the same ethical sphere as his perfect human race. Indeed, he is supposed to have said that if all humans would defer from eating meat, the world would be a better place and all of humanity would benefit. However, most humans did not belong to this ethical sphere, and Hitler put them in the same group as most human beings put animals - as inherently worthless, exploitable beings. This was some heavy conversation to have at 8 a.m. in the morning - but very interesting stuff. It is from this sort of mind-set that I suppose the ultra-right-wing animal rights people must be thinking. They are racists - or "nationalists" as they prefer to call themselves - but still believe that animals should have basic rights to a cruelty free life. This might be connected to a glorified view of animals as pure - but it could also be a cheap way for a group that is mostly seen as very negative to try to get a positive response from society. That, at least, is what other animal rights groups think of the right-wing people. Generally, people into animal rights get there from an interest in human rights, so understandably it becomes paradoxical when a group that is inherently racist is ready to fight for better treatment of animals. I will return to the issue of the neo-nazis a little bit later, when I recite a couple of stories one of the Maastricht activists told me.
But being still on the train, I'll write a few more words about my Austrian friend. After our interesting discussion about Hitler and the wedding of misanthropy and love for animals, we discovered that we are both vegetarians. I've been one for about five and a half years, she's been one for a whopping thirteen! She does admit to sometimes tasting flesh, when she doesn't want to be impolite - i.e. if she's invited to dinner and there is only flesh on the menu, instead of making her hosts feel embarrassed, she will prove flexible and have a little bite in the name of proper etiquette. However, her vegetarianism is not directly linked to the animal rights issue. It sort of came naturally when she was growing up in a very rural community. Her father was a doctor - the only doctor around - so people from the area would come to their house when something happened, and he would even perform surgery there. While he did that, he would always bring his daughter in and show her the workings of the human body - this is the meat, this is the muscle, this is the fat, these are the veins. Subsequently, when presented with the animal meat at the dinner table, the girl would start putting two and two together. What a wonderfully clear connection! The similarity between the animal flesh and the human flesh was so vivid in her mind, that eventually she became repulsed by meat and vegetarianism took over. To this day, the sight and smell of meat don't agree with her at all.
Anyhow - back to the demonstrations!
I reached Maastricht after a five hour train ride from Groningen. The plan, according to the Respect voor dieren website, was to meet up at the Central Station and walk from there to three different shops that sell fur. In front of each one, we would do a demo, with banners, posters and leaflet distribution. The protest had been announced to the authorities duly in advance, and no trouble was expected. In fact, there was no real trouble - but, unlike Groningen, there was quite a bit of hassling from the local police. To the best of my knowledge, and from my experience during the weekend, the friendly Groningen police force proved to be an exception from the general rule.
Exiting Central Station I immediately came upon a group of people with Anti-Fur posters and leaflets in a heap. One of them - a young man, dressed all in black like a true anarchist - seemed nice enough so I sat down and we began to talk. He was also from the North, but had traveled here to attend this protest, and spend a few days in the area. He'd never been to Maastricht before. There was another protest on the following day, and he would be sleeping over in one of the local squats. This is a pretty regular way to travel and stay for animal rights activists in Holland. I was offered to stay over as well, but I needed to leave in order to attend my next protest, in Soest, the following day.
As we began speaking, I noticed that a couple sitting across from us had a pet ferret with them. Neither of us had ever seen anyone with a pet ferret before, and it was difficult to keep our eyes off it as we carried on with our conversation. The ferret seemed quite afraid of all the people walking past, crawling inside his owner's coat and hiding behind her back. It seemed somehow fitting to start off an Anti-Fur march in the company of a live ferret.
As me and my fellow activist began talking, I asked the usual questions about how he got into the business and how active he was. He had been a vegetarian who one day decided to check out an anti-circus protest that was close to his town. That was three years ago and he's been active ever since. He, too, had left the ranks of the Anti-Dierproeven Coalitie for similar reasons as the two Utrecht activists I had spoken with before. They were not grassroots enough for him - and he definitely did not like the whole costume gig. I asked him about other organizations, such as the political Party for the Animals, and he shared my doubts about that. It's not an animal rights organization, but rather an animal welfare group - taking up very much a central view on animals, by pushing for better treatment, but no shift in the way of thinking. They're not against animal exploitation - they are simply for "humane" animal exploitation. This opens up two important questions for the animal rights struggle: 1) does it move the public's attention away from the root of the problem? Meaning: does it provide an easy-way-out for the public to extinguish their feelings of guilt about killing animals? and 2) does it create even more of a gap between the animal welfare and animal rights/liberation groups? Meaning: do the grassroots organizations come off as being even more extremist? These are interesting questions and I really can not answer them. Not yet, anyway. But it seems to me that the Party for the Animals can be summed up in the fact that they have a campaign against the castration of male pigs - not to stop the castration, but to make sure they are given the proper anesthetic.
Then, once again, the conversation turned to the neo-nazi groups. I now finally had the name of this strange group - Dieren tegen de Beesten (or For the Animals, Against the Beast - the Beast being the inhumane humans, of course). This guy had heard about them and also seen some of it in action. In his view (which mirrors the general view of the leftist/anarchist groups) these neo-nazis were just trying to buy popularity and sympathy by addressing the cause of animals. They are not vegetarian or vegan, and thus do not oppose the exploitation of animals in general, but rather they are against unnecessary and/or excessive cruelty. Therefore, they show up at demos such as anti-circus protests. Not too long ago there was a clash between right and left-wing animal rights groups. Around five neo-nazis (or "nationalists") of the right-wing group were actually (or were pretending to be) interested in the animal issue, but the majority of the group were there to "beat up some anarchists". On the other side, many of the animal rights people are also part of the anti-fascist movement, so needless to say - a fight ensued. Similar fights have been started at nationalist rallies, where even groups of "football hooligans" have shown up, not with any political agenda, but only to beat up some nazi punks. What an interesting mix of people! (click here to see a video from the neo-nazi/anti-fascist clash in Maastricht earlier this year).
My fellow activist had only once actually been to a protest where neo-nazi animal rights advocates were present. It was a few days after the massive fight broke out at the neo-nazi rally in Maastricht and an anti-circus protest was scheduled. My friend showed up with a small group of people, only to find that the nationalists were already there - and they had a group of very big, very muscular guys who looked like they were just waiting for a chance to take revenge after the attack on the rally, only days before. The anarchists were not ready to go head-on into a struggle with these wrestlers, so they decided to back down and did no protesting that day.
This struggle between the left and right comes as a big surprise to me, but is nevertheless an interesting subject, as it seems to unite the two sides in the issue of animals (if one is ready to believe the sincerity of the neo-nazi activists). These nationalists, my friend told me, are not skinheads. They look pretty regular and seem to be really trying to get some sympathy for their cause. But it's even worse in France, he went on. There the neo-nazis have almost stolen the animal rights cause for themselves, so that many people of the public think that if you are into animal rights you must be a fascist. You will get yelled at in the streets for wearing animal rights propaganda! I would greatly want to talk with one of these nationalist activists and hear their logic for their concern for animals. I can't help but imagine that it will prove faulty and completely at odd ends with their concern for human beings. Indeed, a friend in Rotterdam has offered to hook me up with one of these guys, but warned me that they might not take too kindly to the way I look... I will have to think about it.
But enough about neo-nazis. Back to the fur industry.
The journey began with a walk to the fashion store La Coup d'Or. The visit is briefly shown at the beginning of the video (below), but no real protest took place, as the owner immediately came out to discuss the issue with the protesters. He claimed not to sell any fur any more, thus making the protest pointless. Indeed, spring is not the season for fur - winter and autumn are much more popular - but protesters use this period to try to persuade store owners not to order any more for the coming seasons. This particular owner promised not to order any more fur for his store. But the protesters were not ready to take his words completely at face value. They were prepared for this and presented the owner with a contract, making him promise in writing that he would not order nor sell any more fur. If he broke this promise, they had permission to come and protest loudly in front of his store. I had never heard about this sort of action before, and was happy to learn about it. From now on, the local activists will make regular visit to check out the store and make sure he keeps up his end of the bargain. It seems that the anti-fur campaign had a small victory!
The walk then proceeded to fashion store Max Mara, now with two policemen on bicycles closely following the group's every move. Upon arriving at the store, the police immediately began setting some ground rules for the protest. We were not allowed to protest or give away leaflets in front of the store itself, but were put to the side where we would not be able to directly hassle the Max Mara customers. This is when I first began to realize the Dutch police methods for peaceful demonstrations. As the protesters had let the authorities know in advance, and were not breaking any rules, the police, of course, could not really do anything about the demo. But, seemingly just to remind everyone who is really in charge, the police can make up any rule they want as to how the protest shall take place. The most common of which is to tell everyone to stay put in one place. We weren't even allowed to cross the street! I had put on a poster (3 Good Reasons Not To Buy Fur) which I had hanging around my neck, as well as holding some leaflets, and with my camera in hand, I indeed crossed the street to get a wide shot of the whole demonstration. Immediately the policeman called me to get back to the group. I did so, without any defiance, as I wasn't clear on these rules. Nevertheless, I needed some more shots for the video, so I decided to go back - only this time, I would extract myself from the group by taking off all propaganda. I removed the poster from hanging around my neck, left all the leaflets behind, and crossed the street again - now only in my civilian clothes, just a member of the public, just like anyone else in the street - in order to film. This was not a good idea. When the policeman saw me on the other side, he got very angry and began shouting at me in Dutch. Of course I knew what he was saying, but I tried to explain in English that I wasn't wearing any protest propaganda and was just there to film a little bit. He did not care for my excuses and very explicitly told me that "if you don't go, you will be arrested!" So I went. Unfortunately, I had turned off my camera, so this does not show up on the video below. However, as I am filming the Max Mara logos, it is possible to hear the policeman shout "Hello!", followed by the policewoman's argument with one of the protesters, who tried to defend my right to film in public. I did not venture out of the group again after this and had no more trouble with the police - although, more was still to come after the demo in Soest (see the next post).
Overall, the demonstration was quite successful. Many people took leaflets, it was a busy street and the message was put across quite clearly. We were there probably for around an hour. Fur protests tend to showcase some gruesome imagery of dead animals, or even examples of animals skinned alive, which usually gets a mixed reaction from the public. This protest was not big on hardcore images - most protesters had the nice poster of the three living minks, to remind viewers of how the animals looked alive (and not shock them by showing them dead). One or two protesters had the skinned pictures hanging off them, but generally they were not very visible. That is why it surprised me when a father came walking past with his little boy and immediately grabbed both his eyes and ears to keep him from seeing and hearing the demo. The boy complained and fought his father, who quickly got them past the banners and back into blissful ignorance. This was in direct opposition to the father I had witnessed in Groningen, who sat down with his kids and spoke with them about what they were seeing. Poor little boy.
After finishing the demo, we packed up and decided to take a break. However, the police seemed interested in getting some information about the protesters - in particular, one of the loud ones - and asked for his ID and info. However, the police can't simply ask for your ID in Holland - they need to have a valid reason. So, having seen him rolling a joint, they "suspected" him of carrying drugs (a strange accusation in Holland, of all places...). Of course, a search showed that he was only carrying the legal amount, but by doing this the police now had his name and numbers. This can be seen in the video below.
After a well-earned rest, the protesters carried on to the third, and final, store of the day. An outlet of the Max Mara brand, this one was called "Fur & Fashion". Upon arriving the protest began almost immediately with shouting slogans against the store and its use of fur. This brought out the store manager who, like the owner of the first store, claimed not to sell any fur. This discussion can also be seen on the video. The protesters asked if she would be willing to sign a contract, but as she wasn't the owner, she could not do that. The group seemed a bit unwilling to believe her, but decided to give her the benefit of doubt and leave the store alone for a while. When asked about the store name, the manager said they were planning to change the name and subsequently remove "fur" completely from the store - both the products and the label. This seems also to have been a victory for the protesters, who will keep close watch over the shop and won't hesitate to show up with their megaphones if the manager breaks her promise.
So all in all this was a successful day for the Maastricht ant-fur protesters! It was a great relief to actually experience results. But therein lies a great difference between the anti-experiment protests I had seen the day before, and this sort of protest. Basically, when protesting against vivisection, the direct influence on the culprits is very limited. The doctors and scientists in the labs are unlikely to be affected by the protest. So it is directed to the public, to raise awareness. But the public is really quite powerless in these matters - unless they are directly involved in the business of experimentation or animal breeding. Sure, they can write letters and start a discussion, but they lack their most powerful weapon - the main weapon of any consumer - which is the ability to boycott. It is possible to boycott companies that use animals for experiments (particularly those dealing in cosmetics and such), but boycotting medical labs or university experimentation buildings is a whole different story. With fur products, however, the consumer does wield quite a lot of power. Either you wear fur or you don't. And when dealing with specific stores, showing up in front of them to shout and badmouth the products with pictures of skinned rabbits and minks - well, they all fear bad publicity, and this sort of method really does work. They fear the consumer - as they damn well should - and they fear the boycotts. This is why the Maastricht protests were so successful. Of course, it has to be put in context with the fact that this is not the first demonstration of this sort in Maastricht - far from it. These are regular walks, made by people who are truly active and dedicated to their cause. That is why the store owners know that if they break their agreement, there will be consequences.
In addition, without ever really talking to the public, it was my feeling that the people responded much more positively to this protest, compared to the one in Groningen, which was much more dramatic and aggressive. This was more conventional - banners, some shouting (but not too much) and leaflets.
Finally, before going on to writing about the final protest in Soest, a few more words about the police authority. Recently, the police has been putting more pressure on animal rights demonstrations and doing what they can do get the information of everyone involved in it. As is the norm in the UK, for example, they videotape demonstrations and try to get photos and images of as many people as they can, to put into their filing system. The Maastricht demo was no exception. Since the schedule was announced beforehand, the authorities knew when and where everyone would be. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that at each stop, a man was waiting with a camera, filming everything. Every time someone tried to approach him, he fled the scene. He even filmed the group when they were sitting down and taking a break. At that point, two of the activists managed to catch up with him and asked the purpose of his filming. Just filming the buildings, he said. And when asked about the ear-piece he had on, he simply claimed to be listening to the radio. This mysterious man can be seen at the very end of the video below, where he indeed is seen speaking to a woman who is part of the city guard. Mystery solved.
Before getting into the actual demonstration at Groningen, a quick backstory is needed. A couple of weeks ago I sent an e-mail to the Respect voor dieren branch at Groningen because of a circus protest that was happening there. I was wondering if it would be worth the trip (which is about 2 1/2 hours from Amsterdam one way) for me to travel all that distance for only one hour of protest. Basically, the answer was no - not really. But my contact suggested that I would rather come on Friday, May 8th, when the Anti-Dierproeven Coalitie would be having a long protest against the new animal experimentation laboratory at the Groningen University (RUG). This sounded like a swell idea.
On the ADC website (www.stopdierproeven.org) they mentioned a protest on their agenda for that specific day, but didn't give any information on where and when. I knew it was in Groningen, thanks to my friend, but I needed more specific info. The ADC website only said, in Dutch of course, that if you wanted more info you should e-mail them. So I did. This was their response:
"Sorry to say this, but we are a closed group as we had issues in the past, therefore we cannot just allow people at our demo's."
Immediately I thought that perhaps they were planning a direct action - which might border on the illegal - but according to my earlier contact, this was an action that was completely legal and licensed from the authorities. I got in touch with my contact again, who was good enough to trust me (even though I'd never met the guy) and gave the specifics of the demo. He seemed a little surprised at the reaction of the ADC. Why would they not want people at the protest? For a direct action group such as the ALF, I would understand the secrecy, but according to my sources this was a group that had left their hardcore roots behind and was aiming at a more mellow way of getting attention. This is the only time (so far) that I have received distrust from the local activists - in other cases, they usually take me quite openly. However, I had heard that the Dutch authorities had been trying to tighten the grip on animal activism, so perhaps it is understandable that they were not ready to trust me. But what were these "issues" in the past? Were they with the police, authorities, journalists? Or possibly the strange group of neo-nazi animal rights advocates? I had no idea. I had heard of animal groups getting into trouble for letting outsiders in (i.e. a journalist), but those were groups involved with direct action (i.e. invading mink farms and liberating the animals).
Anyhow, I went, I showed up, and I even met the guy who had sent me the e-mail. It turned out to be the group leader, who apologized to me for being so rude, and admired my stubbornness. He never gave me an exact reason why they needed all this secrecy (obviously it was an authorized protest, as the police surrounded and paid close surveillance on every corner), apart from the fact that this was a new campaign and they just couldn't spare any time or energy to deal with any possible outsiders, but would rather focus on their own people. Their protest that day was split in three parts. The first took place outside the newly established experimentation laboratory. During this I had not yet met the group, so I stayed on the outside, filming what was going on. The second took place outside the main University building. By this time I had already met most of the group, so I filmed a little bit and then joined the demonstration. The third and final event was in front of the schoolmaster's official building. Here I did not film anything, but took an active part instead by holding banners and chanting slogans in my badly accented Dutch.
The actual protest was against all experiments on animals in general, but this specific campaign was focused on cats, supposedly in order to make it easier for the public to relate, by using a common pet instead of i.e. rats or mice, even though they are being experimented on inside the labs as well. The set-up of the protest was a group of people holding banners and posters and chanting slogans. Certain "spokespeople" also took turns with a loud megaphone, reciting monologues about the use of animals in experiments at the RUG (Rijks Universiteit Groningen). In addition to this, there was a small performance at the forefront of the demo, involving three people in costumes. Two were dressed as vivisectionists in lab coats, sporting laboratory equipment, and one was dressed as a cat, lying on a table, being experimented on. (All of this can be seen in the video below.)
The tradition of wearing animal costumes to get attention is an old one, at least in the United Kingdom, dating back to protests before WWI. Understandably, many people do not like this tradition and it defers many protesters from taking part (i.e. the activists from the vegan picnic in Utrecht). Reasons are generally that it seems silly, stupid and irrelevant to the cause. However, it does attract attention - that can not be denied - and especially from children and families, who are often pulled towards the demo because of the animal costumes. Indeed, watching children pass by the protest was an interesting experience, as they certainly seemed to respond to the event in a way that they might not have done with a regular information stand. I remember watching a father with two young children stopping by the demo, the older kid (a young girl, maybe five years of age) seemingly shocked at what the people were doing to this cat. With a horrified look on her face she asked her father, presumably something like: "What are they doing to the cat?" The father knelt down and explained it to his kids, pointing to the protesters while he spoke. Whatever he said, I do not know, but I am sure that if I was a kid who saw a demo like that in the street, the images would stick with me for a while. For sure. Furthermore, in the video below there is a quick shot of a mother crossing the street with two children, who are both watching the demo. As they pass by on their bicycles, the mother sends the protesters a thumbs-up.
Watching the people's reactions was one of the most interesting aspects of the demo. Most faces began with surprise, even shock. Occasionally people would send thumbs up, or honk their horns (although it is uncertain if that was a positive or negative thing). Every now and then someone would give out derisive laughter. Some were obviously meant to mock the protest, but in many cases the laughter seemed to be a way of coping with the imagery - sort of like the shock reflex one encounters in cinema audiences confronted with quick and extreme violent images, which bursts out in forced laughs. I did not go to speak with anyone from the public to ask about their views on the event, but I did go up to a couple of people who were working for the University news team. They had been speaking to people around, so I thought I'd eliminate the work of actually approaching the Dutch public and make a short-cut by simply asking the news people what they had found out. Generally, it seems, the reception was pretty negative. All in all most people thought the demo was too aggressive (an interesting fact, seeing that this is an organization that other activists accuse of going mellow...), too loud and too much in-your-face. Most people thought that this sort of action would accomplish nothing - certainly, the people doing the vivisection, the doctors and pharmaceutical students inside the laboratory, would not really change their ways because of this. So what is the way to go? Discussion on an academic or socially constructive level - not shouting in the streets. Basically, people prefer that you work from within the system, not outside it, which taps into the eternal question that activists are faced with: which way to go? All the way, attack the roots and settle for nothing less than total abolition? Or meet the public half-way, work from within the system, and try to bring about slow change by increasing awareness and send letters to politicians? It seems that the ACD organization has found itself in a strange situation - too weak for the grassroots, too loud for the public.
A couple of weeks before I came to Groningen I had dinner at a vegetarian restaurant, when I noticed that the cook was wearing an "Animal Liberation" t-shirt. I went up to him, introduced myself and had a short chat with him about the Dutch animal rights scene. Now, at the Groningen protest, we met again. He had traveled from Amsterdam to attend this demo. This was my first experience of the inter-connectedness between all these groups - the first of many familiar faces I would encounter. I spoke with a couple of the other protesters, mostly to get their view on the demo and try to hear if they had any particular reasons or stories on why they got involved with the cause. The most interesting one was probably from a girl who simply said that she stopped eating meat when she moved into a place on her own and didn't have much money to spend on food. Meat being the most expensive product she was buying, she saved money by purchasing less and less, until one day she discovered that she hadn't eaten meat for over a week and she was surviving quite well. She had always liked animals, so she made a conscious decision to drop meat altogether, which gradually led to her involvement in the animal rights cause. Furthermore, she said that she wasn't as active as she'd like to be with the demonstrations, but every time she got the chance to go out and contribute, she tried her best. Being vegetarian at home just isn't enough.
The following video shows the protest in good detail and should give a pretty honest view of how it was performed. One image I am sad to have missed with my camera was that of a large dog walking past the cat-suit performance, stopping to sniff and look at this odd creature lying on the table. It was a wonderfully vivid image - the animal experiment protesters and the animal taking in the view. In the video, the protesters can be heard shouting in Dutch. Most of the slogans revolve around the same thing: RUG and the experimentation lab. They chant lines like "RUG is Hell for Cats", "Shame on You and your Bloody Hands", "Stop Vivisection" and "All Animals [or in some cases All Cats] Free!"
This weekend was spent traveling around the Netherlands to meet up with animal rights activists doing demonstrations and protests. The trip took me from Amsterdam to Utrecht to Groningen (far north) to Maastricht (far south) to Soes (close to Utrecht) and finally back to Amsterdam. During this trip a few memorable things happened that I would like to note for future reference.
The journey began from Utrecht Centraal station, to find Park Lepelenburg, where a vegan picnic was taking place (poetically enough, my bus stop to get there was on Hamburger street). This was being held by the newly formed group Utrecht Animal Defense as a sort of call-for-arms for local vegans and anyone interested in animal rights to show up as possible recruits for actions and demos. This was my first actual meeting of people involved with the cause and it was interesting to hear some of their views on the situation in the Netherlands.
I immediately got the feeling that the active group of animal protesters is not as large as I had imagined. It is true that most towns and cities around the country have their local groups, connected to some of the larger organizations (such as Respect voor dieren and Anti-Dierproeven Coalitie), but nevertheless many protesters travel around whenever there is a demo going on somewhere, and most of the people recognize one another. This would be confirmed for me during the weekend, when in the next three days I would already begin seeing familiar faces. Another thing that was interesting to hear about during the vegan picnic was that at least two of the activists I spoke with, both from the North (where I was going the following day), had become frustrated with the Anti-Dierproeven Coalitie because of their working methods, and consequently "left" the group (i.e. stopped showing up for demos). They seemed a little disappointed, having put in a lot of work in recent years. The reasons for this, well, they didn't really give out any specifics, apart from a change of control - apparently a hierarchy of sorts had evolved with two people "running the show" and the rest only supposed to follow - and a change in protesting methods. What used to be a very hardcore group was now becoming mellow, by trying to get public attention through performances and by focusing on specific animals, instead of aiming for the root of the problem.
Basically, what the Anti-Dieren Coalitie had begun doing was to make specific actions for animals that generally get more sympathy from people. The organization is against all animal experiments - in general, all animals should be equal - but now they had recently finished a campaign against the use of monkeys in laboratories, and this apparently annoyed the two activists (i.e. saving only monkeys does not solve the real problem). The counter-argument, as I heard it from ADC activists the next day, is that telling the public "All Animals Free" is too vague and too unfocused to have any real effect. However, with focusing on a specific species (such as monkeys, or cats, as the latest campaign highlighted) an emotional connection can more easily be created, which then may lead to the person beginning to think about other species, and then the system as a whole.
But what was really the last straw for the renegade activists was the fact that the ADC started to wear costumes during their protests. That was too much. They found it silly, stupid and of no consequence (more info on the ADC demo in the next post). This is not the way to change things, they said. And left. So what does a lonely activist do, when not part of a larger group? Well, they are still part of the larger whole, even though they don't belong to a specific group, so they just pick the causes, protests and demos that suit them, and keep on doing their daily fight simply by affecting their own surroundings. But their decision to boycott the ADC demos was a determined decision - they hope that the less people show up, the better the group will understand that the activists don't like their new approach. Hopefully, sooner than later, they can be reunited in the fight.
A couple of other interesting conversations happened. One friend told me his reasons for becoming vegetarian - basically, it was because his sister had done it and got him interested in the issue. And why did his sister turn vegetarian? Interestingly enough, she had gone to school in a rural community, where the actual schoolhouse was connected to a farmyard. This was supposed to give the students a greater appreciation of the workings of agriculture in the area. For this girl, it certainly worked. She got to know the lambs of the farmhouse and took good care of one specific lamb, which was her responsibility. At the end of the semester, her lamb was slaughtered and eaten. Vegetarianism ensued.
A man from India showed up and we had a nice talk about animals, especially regarding religion in his country. He spoke of a sort of inherent respect for certain animals in India, the cow being the most famous example. This has to do with their links to specific gods - each god bearing a familiar spirit, or companion animal. If you believe in or have respect for that god, vicariously you will respect this animal. This is particularly true for older people, and he described to me his grandparents and their way of life, which involved respect for all living animals. They never ate meat, out of religious respect. Needless to say, this is not as strong today as it was for their generation, but nevertheless, the influence of this respect is still strong in Indian society. Vegetarianism is widespread and the whole issue of human-animal relationship vastly different from the attitudes of the West. Of course, this knowledge is not new to me, as Hinduism is commonly used as an example of a different world view than the Judeo-Christian one, but still it was the first time that I've had a conversation with someone from that background, and in the end that is really what this trip is all about. The outcome of our conversation was the realization that people generally can have a lot of sympathy for animals, but they lack the feeling of responsibility as consumers. So: SYMPATHY MUST TRANSFORM INTO RESPONSIBILITY.
I like that line.
PS: And briefly, one nice story about the human-animal gap that still seems to stay burned in the brains of some people: One of the guys told me about a friend of his who was working in a museum in Leiden where a zoological exhibition was taking place. The friend was working on a set of skulls - all sorts of animal skulls, labeled and presented to show the diversity and commonality of species. During the exhibit, two people, separately and on two different occasions, came up to this friend to rectify a mistake. Politely, they pointed out that she had made an error when putting up the exhibition: she had put the human skulls in with the animal skulls. How rare!
PPS: The Utrecht picnic also gave me the first mention of ultra-right-wing (neo-nazi) animal rights activists, that have been clashing with the left-wing section. More info on that later.
I am currently reading a very interesting book entitled Monster Of God: The Man-Eating Predator in the Jungles of History and the Mind, which looks at many different layers and sides of humankind's history with our natural predators, through the exploration of mythology, religion, biology and cultural studies. The author, David Quammen, travels through time from man's first encounters with man-eaters and well up to the peripheral present day people who still live in close contact with our "old" predators (even though many of them - the ones who aren't extinct already - are systematically being eradicated ...)
In the first chapter of the book there is a brief reference to the Leopard Men of the Congo, known as the Anioto. Quammen is discussing the different manifestations of predators in religious symbolism and in the eastern Congo there was a belief in shape-shifting between leopards and humans. The Anioto were not shapeshifters - they were just human beings who, according to the stories, would dress in leopard skins (even with an attached tail), walk on all fours and roar like the beasts. But the really interesting thing about the Anioto is that they made claw-like weapons to imitate the teeth and claws of the leopard. This they used to kill and subsequently blame their murders on real leopards.
This short description of the Anioto stuck with me, because it precisely mirrors part of my MA-project on animal imagery in horror films, where the desired weapons of choice are usually reminiscent of teeth and claws. More modern weapons, such as guns or flame-throwers, are not common in the typical horror film, and neither are far-ranging weapons such as a bow or arrow. Most of the weaponry aim at close-range kills, with knives, machetes, axes, saws and the like being the paradigm examples. Indeed, when Wes Craven was trying to decide on a weapon for his invention of Freddy Krueger for the first A Nightmare on Elm Street film, he thought about the collective human sub-conscious and went back to our most primal fear - that of man-eating predators - and ultimately created the infamous dagger-hands, as a direct reference to our old animal enemies.
I did a quick search for more information about the Anioto Leopard Men, but didn't come up with much, apart from this article by David Arthur Adams. It discusses the "Real" Leopard Men, taking one of Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan stories as a starting point. Indeed, Tarzan not only fought the Anioto in the original book (which you can read here), but also in an Italian 1964 film, as well as the better known 1946 Weissmuller film Tarzan and the Leopard Woman.
Nicely sums up some of the main ethical issues of eating sentient creatures, by investigating the case of boiling lobsters alive, which is probably the only time an animal is killed in the actual kitchen/restaurant, and its death is not hidden from plain view. Supposedly many still cling to the myth that lobsters (like the myth about the fish) don't feel pain - something that has been debunked a long time ago, as the process is very painful for lobsters. Nevertheless, you can go to a restaurant, pick out your own lobster from a tank, and have it killed, cooked and served to you "fresh". This reminds me of a scene from the HBO documentary To Love or Kill: Man vs. Animals where the setting is pretty much the same, except that the restaurant guests pick out a cat to eat, instead of a lobster. The cats are kept in cages, the guests pick one, which is then brutally killed in the kitchen, flayed and boiled alive, and served for dinner:
While the cat claws and screeches, the cook hits her several times with an iron bar. Clawing and screeching more now, she is abruptly submerged in a tub of scalding water for about ten seconds. Once removed, and while still alive, the cook skins her, from head to tail, in one swift pull. He then throws the traumatized animal into a large ston vat where (as the camera zooms in) we watch her gulp slowly, with increasing difficulty, her eyes glazed, until – her last breath taken – she drowns. (Tom Regan, Empty Cages, p. 1)
Few people would be ready to face such honest brutality when eating out, although in a way it is a much more honest way to eat your meat - where nothing is hidden, everything shown, there's no pretension of caring treatment or humane killing, and the restaurant guests have nowhere to hide away from the bloody trail of the fleshy menu.
Lobster-boiling also reminds me of a passage from Michael Tobias' thriller-novel Rage and Reason, about an animal rights activist that goes all out in punishing the ones responsible for cruelty towards animals. The ex-Special Forces veteran turns to violent retribution and shows humans no mercy. At one point, he takes his revenge on the lobster industry:
But Jerrasi and his colleagues at the FBI drew their own conclusions, which were augmented later that week when the owner of a restaurant chain specializing in Maine lobsters was found boiled to death in a large cauldron in the kitchen of her establishment. Her skin had turned to the consistency of the rare tats bota, or Brazilian armadillo. Sixty-five live lobsters had been stolen, their whereabouts and state of health unknown. No message had been left. No reason for the murder stated. (Michael Tobias, Rage and Reason, p. 87)
The full audiobook for David Foster Wallace's Consider the Lobster can be downloaded here.
Being an Animal Rights Advocate researching the issue of animal ethics in its many different manifestations, I decided to open this blog as a sort of notebook for myself, my research project, and for anyone else interested in this sort of thing.
Here I will dump all sorts of stuff that I feel is relevant to the issue of animal culture, write notes and thoughts about the subject and discuss whatever might be reflecting the way we think about animals and the way we treat them.
Please feel free to give input and comment on everything found within these pages... I'm always happy to get suggestions about anything and everything pertaining to the issue of animals and society, so do not hesitate to leave me a message!
The donkey-headed adversary of humanity opens the discussion.
