Thursday, January 14, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Monday, June 15, 2009
If we're gonna kill, LET'S KILL!
This post is about a beautiful interview with one of the local Icelandic whale hunters. Unfortunately, its beauty can only be understood by Icelanders, but I'll do my best to describe the main point (as I see it, anyhow).
First, a couple of words about the backstory of this clip. I won't go into detail regarding the issue of whaling in Iceland, which should be relatively well known to all, but rather focus on two small incidents that I have witnessed - one earlier this year, the other over five years ago.
I'll start with the older one, which happened in 2003 and is one of the reasons I went vegetarian that year. The idea had been simmering in my head for quite some time, but never really taken root, until the summer of 2003, when I started some heavy ethical thinking. One of the sparks was the visit of Greenpeace to protest against Icelanders taking up whaling again, after years of banning. I felt that I was against whaling, but I couldn't really find the right arguments for it, as I was still a meat-eater. Why was I against whaling, and not other forms of hunting, or breeding, for food? Being interested in environmental issues, I volunteered to help out with Greenpeace's visit, and did some work for them, thus getting to know some of the people involved. Once I asked a man, who seemed to be their spokesman, why he was against whaling, or what was his standard answer to this question. He began talking about the majestic whale, being a symbol of the giants of nature and the ocean, and seemed to see whale defense as symbolizing the environmental battle of Greenpeace as a whole - if we lose the whales, what hope have we to help out other, smaller, creatures/issues?
I understood his point of view, but this sort of thinking did not ring true with me. There was something wrong with it, I could feel it - an inconsistency that I couldn't put my finger on until, a few days later, some pro-whalers arrived at the Reykjavík harbor to protest Greenpeace. They did this by bringing a barbecue with them and throwing some freshly killed whale on the fire. Greenpeace members responded in a very friendly manner, by joining the protesters at the BBQ and having a good talk. But, needless to say, they did not have any whale meat. Instead, the grilled some veal.
This is the moment when I broke away from Greenpeace and began my own quest for ethical consistency. I did not like the idea of eating veal. I did not like the idea of killing whales. Yet, I ate other kinds of meat. I began feeling pretty much like a hypocrite. I also began viewing the Greenpeace activists as being hypocrites. How can you be against killing a whale and yet justify the slaughter of calves? To make a long story short: I couldn't justify being against whaling and yet eating other animals bred for slaughter, so I became vegetarian and have been one since.
This brings me to the second point. Whaling is still an issue in Iceland and in the time of unemployment due to the economic crisis, whaling is easier to justify than before (it creates jobs!), even though the old economic arguments against whaling still stand strong (it makes our touristy image dirty and whale meat isn't very popular as export goods). We still have people against whaling, but I doubt very much that the majority of those people are vegetarian.
So, earlier this year, I was at a gathering where our minister of education was having an open Q&A with some university students. The main topic of discussion, of course, was the crisis. However, at the start of the conversation, one guy threw in a question of whaling that really caught my attention. Do bear in mind, that this minister is probably one of the most left-wing politicians holding seats in parliament, so the fact that she - of all people - would be found guilty of such drastic nonsense as will be unveiled a few lines from now, vividly shows how backward the Icelandic thinking of the whale issue - and the issue of fish - really is.
Let it be stated for the record that I voted for Katrín Jakobsdóttir in the elections this year, even after hearing her answer to the young man's question, because I do have respect for her as being one of the most intelligent left wing politicians we have. Unfortunately, she's not too well educated on the issue of animal sentience. She represents the Left Green Party, which is very vocal against whaling. As is usually the case, such arguments can not easily be won on sentimental grounds, so economic arguments reign supreme. But this young man, who obviously was pro-whaling and only trying to embarrass the minister, pointed to a much more relevant root of the matter. He asked, in a very basic manner: You are against whaling - but what is the difference between killing a whale and killing a haddock?
My ears immediately came alive. I was sitting at a table, very bored with the discussion and, to be honest, mostly there for the free drinks involved. Next to me sat a friend from work, who knew everything about my position. Indeed, we had had similar discussions at work before. He is a meat-eater, but nevertheless he had expressed his annoyance for vegetarians who still eat fish (an issue that has always bothered me as well). From this discussion, we had talked about the seemingly unkillable myth that fish do not feel pain - something that has been debunked time and time again, but just doesn't seem to take hold. Particularly not in a society that bases itself on killing fish. So the government official's response really shouldn't have surprised anyone: Well, ask anyone involved in animal ethics and they will tell you that there is in fact a big difference. The whale is a mammal, and can therefore feel pain, but the haddock is a fish, and therefore cannot. After this statement, she mentioned that this wasn't really the point, and went, yet again, into a discussion of the economic disadvantages of whaling.
My friend gave me a little push and a stare, urging me to join the discussion, but I wasn't ready for that. Thinking back, maybe I should've stood up for the fish, but having an argument with 50 university students, who were definitely against the idea of fish feeling pain, didn't really seem attractive at the time. If I were to meet Katrín Jakobsdóttir face to face at some point, however, I will most definitely bring up the issue - just to tell her that in the view of most people involved with animal ethics, no, there really isn't that much of a difference between killing a whale and a haddock. If you want to be consistent, you either kill'em all, or spare'em all.
Which, finally, brings me to the beautiful interview with the whale hunter.
[For some reason embedding this video doesn't seem to work, but please watch it here.]
He's been off the seas for 30 years, working in land, but now, due to unemployment, he's heading back out. There is an aesthetically pleasing quality to the man's speech about whaling. He answers the questions with well-crafted one-liners, about the right to kill whales, and obviously has strong opinions on the issue. To him, this is all natural. His sentences are like bullets - you do this, you do that, and that's the way it is. The man is old school and he speaks like the older generation of farmers and industry workers - in an honest way, with everything face-up and no hiding behind bureaucratic nonsense.
In other words, no shitting.
Which is what makes the following response so beautiful, when the interviewer throws out the commonly held view that there is something inherently wrong with killing whales:
Interviewer: Don't you feel sorry for these large creatures, when they approach death?
Hunter: There is no difference between killing a chicken and a whale. It's just one soul, one shot, takes one second, the creature is dead. I had to take my dog away the other day and that was difficult.
Although he doesn't really answer the question, he has no illusions about killing. It's all the same - a chicken, a whale and a dog. Even though he doesn't clearly answer if he feels sorry for the whale, he does imply (by referring to it being difficult to have had his dog put down) that it is always difficult. [The example of the dog could be seen as an example of something that is difficult, as a counterpoint to it not being difficult to kill the other animals, i.e. with emphasizing "that was difficult", but the man's tone of voice implies that he is in fact connecting the two things - killing is always difficult. At least be honest about it.
The reference to the soul is interesting, as it puts the animals as all being equal in the end, through the possession of a soul. The soul of a chicken weighs as much as the soul of a whale and a dog. I wonder what the religious beliefs of this man are, since those who tend to believe in human souls generally do not extend that belief to animals... Does this mean the hunter will meet his whale in heaven? No, not really - it's just a metaphor for saying all animals are equal for killing (unless, of course, you're lucky enough to be a human animal).
Hats off for Sveinn Geir Sigurjónsson, the honest whaler.
First, a couple of words about the backstory of this clip. I won't go into detail regarding the issue of whaling in Iceland, which should be relatively well known to all, but rather focus on two small incidents that I have witnessed - one earlier this year, the other over five years ago.
I'll start with the older one, which happened in 2003 and is one of the reasons I went vegetarian that year. The idea had been simmering in my head for quite some time, but never really taken root, until the summer of 2003, when I started some heavy ethical thinking. One of the sparks was the visit of Greenpeace to protest against Icelanders taking up whaling again, after years of banning. I felt that I was against whaling, but I couldn't really find the right arguments for it, as I was still a meat-eater. Why was I against whaling, and not other forms of hunting, or breeding, for food? Being interested in environmental issues, I volunteered to help out with Greenpeace's visit, and did some work for them, thus getting to know some of the people involved. Once I asked a man, who seemed to be their spokesman, why he was against whaling, or what was his standard answer to this question. He began talking about the majestic whale, being a symbol of the giants of nature and the ocean, and seemed to see whale defense as symbolizing the environmental battle of Greenpeace as a whole - if we lose the whales, what hope have we to help out other, smaller, creatures/issues?
I understood his point of view, but this sort of thinking did not ring true with me. There was something wrong with it, I could feel it - an inconsistency that I couldn't put my finger on until, a few days later, some pro-whalers arrived at the Reykjavík harbor to protest Greenpeace. They did this by bringing a barbecue with them and throwing some freshly killed whale on the fire. Greenpeace members responded in a very friendly manner, by joining the protesters at the BBQ and having a good talk. But, needless to say, they did not have any whale meat. Instead, the grilled some veal.
This is the moment when I broke away from Greenpeace and began my own quest for ethical consistency. I did not like the idea of eating veal. I did not like the idea of killing whales. Yet, I ate other kinds of meat. I began feeling pretty much like a hypocrite. I also began viewing the Greenpeace activists as being hypocrites. How can you be against killing a whale and yet justify the slaughter of calves? To make a long story short: I couldn't justify being against whaling and yet eating other animals bred for slaughter, so I became vegetarian and have been one since.
This brings me to the second point. Whaling is still an issue in Iceland and in the time of unemployment due to the economic crisis, whaling is easier to justify than before (it creates jobs!), even though the old economic arguments against whaling still stand strong (it makes our touristy image dirty and whale meat isn't very popular as export goods). We still have people against whaling, but I doubt very much that the majority of those people are vegetarian.
So, earlier this year, I was at a gathering where our minister of education was having an open Q&A with some university students. The main topic of discussion, of course, was the crisis. However, at the start of the conversation, one guy threw in a question of whaling that really caught my attention. Do bear in mind, that this minister is probably one of the most left-wing politicians holding seats in parliament, so the fact that she - of all people - would be found guilty of such drastic nonsense as will be unveiled a few lines from now, vividly shows how backward the Icelandic thinking of the whale issue - and the issue of fish - really is.
Let it be stated for the record that I voted for Katrín Jakobsdóttir in the elections this year, even after hearing her answer to the young man's question, because I do have respect for her as being one of the most intelligent left wing politicians we have. Unfortunately, she's not too well educated on the issue of animal sentience. She represents the Left Green Party, which is very vocal against whaling. As is usually the case, such arguments can not easily be won on sentimental grounds, so economic arguments reign supreme. But this young man, who obviously was pro-whaling and only trying to embarrass the minister, pointed to a much more relevant root of the matter. He asked, in a very basic manner: You are against whaling - but what is the difference between killing a whale and killing a haddock?
My ears immediately came alive. I was sitting at a table, very bored with the discussion and, to be honest, mostly there for the free drinks involved. Next to me sat a friend from work, who knew everything about my position. Indeed, we had had similar discussions at work before. He is a meat-eater, but nevertheless he had expressed his annoyance for vegetarians who still eat fish (an issue that has always bothered me as well). From this discussion, we had talked about the seemingly unkillable myth that fish do not feel pain - something that has been debunked time and time again, but just doesn't seem to take hold. Particularly not in a society that bases itself on killing fish. So the government official's response really shouldn't have surprised anyone: Well, ask anyone involved in animal ethics and they will tell you that there is in fact a big difference. The whale is a mammal, and can therefore feel pain, but the haddock is a fish, and therefore cannot. After this statement, she mentioned that this wasn't really the point, and went, yet again, into a discussion of the economic disadvantages of whaling.
My friend gave me a little push and a stare, urging me to join the discussion, but I wasn't ready for that. Thinking back, maybe I should've stood up for the fish, but having an argument with 50 university students, who were definitely against the idea of fish feeling pain, didn't really seem attractive at the time. If I were to meet Katrín Jakobsdóttir face to face at some point, however, I will most definitely bring up the issue - just to tell her that in the view of most people involved with animal ethics, no, there really isn't that much of a difference between killing a whale and a haddock. If you want to be consistent, you either kill'em all, or spare'em all.
Which, finally, brings me to the beautiful interview with the whale hunter.
[For some reason embedding this video doesn't seem to work, but please watch it here.]
He's been off the seas for 30 years, working in land, but now, due to unemployment, he's heading back out. There is an aesthetically pleasing quality to the man's speech about whaling. He answers the questions with well-crafted one-liners, about the right to kill whales, and obviously has strong opinions on the issue. To him, this is all natural. His sentences are like bullets - you do this, you do that, and that's the way it is. The man is old school and he speaks like the older generation of farmers and industry workers - in an honest way, with everything face-up and no hiding behind bureaucratic nonsense.
In other words, no shitting.
Which is what makes the following response so beautiful, when the interviewer throws out the commonly held view that there is something inherently wrong with killing whales:
Interviewer: Don't you feel sorry for these large creatures, when they approach death?
Hunter: There is no difference between killing a chicken and a whale. It's just one soul, one shot, takes one second, the creature is dead. I had to take my dog away the other day and that was difficult.
Although he doesn't really answer the question, he has no illusions about killing. It's all the same - a chicken, a whale and a dog. Even though he doesn't clearly answer if he feels sorry for the whale, he does imply (by referring to it being difficult to have had his dog put down) that it is always difficult. [The example of the dog could be seen as an example of something that is difficult, as a counterpoint to it not being difficult to kill the other animals, i.e. with emphasizing "that was difficult", but the man's tone of voice implies that he is in fact connecting the two things - killing is always difficult. At least be honest about it.
The reference to the soul is interesting, as it puts the animals as all being equal in the end, through the possession of a soul. The soul of a chicken weighs as much as the soul of a whale and a dog. I wonder what the religious beliefs of this man are, since those who tend to believe in human souls generally do not extend that belief to animals... Does this mean the hunter will meet his whale in heaven? No, not really - it's just a metaphor for saying all animals are equal for killing (unless, of course, you're lucky enough to be a human animal).
Hats off for Sveinn Geir Sigurjónsson, the honest whaler.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Ethical Man is on the case!
Ethical Man is a guy over at the BBC who travels around and investigates all sorts of ethical stuff, it seems. He finds interesting scenarios that connect in one way or another with larger, global environmental issues, and comments about the big questions of our relationship with Mother Earth.
You can read his blog here, which makes for some interesting reading, although most of it revolves around greenhouse gasses and animal issues are not really highlighted. However, what caught my attention was his visit to a Las Vegas (!) pig-farmer a little while ago.
The video can be watched here and I do recommend it, if only for the nice surprise at the end. It doesn't really deal with the treatment of pigs at this guy's farm (which seems very crowded ...), but rather shows an interesting way of disposing of left-over food. Indeed, the farmer is described as a "food recycler" - meaning that he collects many tons of left-over food from the casinos, hotels and restaurants of Las Vegas every day, and re-uses it by feeding it to his pigs. Certainly, the pigs get a mixed stew of all sorts of food, which is all fine and good for the pigs, I guess. And the food isn't thrown away, which is always a positive thing. But is this a sustainable solution to the problem of the over-production of food? I guess Ethical Man seems to think so. But it's really just a cover-up, something that cleans up the environmental image but does nothing to change the system, as the left-over food goes directly into making more food, which will only become more left-overs (and subsequently fed to other pigs?) ... so people can keep on overindulging and pigs can keep on getting mass slaughtered.
A vicious cycle of over-consuming, indeed.
You can read his blog here, which makes for some interesting reading, although most of it revolves around greenhouse gasses and animal issues are not really highlighted. However, what caught my attention was his visit to a Las Vegas (!) pig-farmer a little while ago.
The video can be watched here and I do recommend it, if only for the nice surprise at the end. It doesn't really deal with the treatment of pigs at this guy's farm (which seems very crowded ...), but rather shows an interesting way of disposing of left-over food. Indeed, the farmer is described as a "food recycler" - meaning that he collects many tons of left-over food from the casinos, hotels and restaurants of Las Vegas every day, and re-uses it by feeding it to his pigs. Certainly, the pigs get a mixed stew of all sorts of food, which is all fine and good for the pigs, I guess. And the food isn't thrown away, which is always a positive thing. But is this a sustainable solution to the problem of the over-production of food? I guess Ethical Man seems to think so. But it's really just a cover-up, something that cleans up the environmental image but does nothing to change the system, as the left-over food goes directly into making more food, which will only become more left-overs (and subsequently fed to other pigs?) ... so people can keep on overindulging and pigs can keep on getting mass slaughtered.
A vicious cycle of over-consuming, indeed.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Restaurant at the End of the Universe
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.
If only more restaurants were so honest.
---
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.
If only more restaurants were so honest.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Animals Go Wild!
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.
In addition, please find enclosed:
Runaway bull's supermarket sweep
Deer stop at a beer shop
Cow rides in back of car
Shoplifting seagull caught on camera
and finally...
Cat turns up on weatherman's set.
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 05049
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.)
Monday, May 18, 2009
Tippi í Afríku
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.
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.
City Goes Veggie Once A Week
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Animal Rights Demonstrations - Part Four - Soest, 10.05.2009
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 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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
