On Veal, Victories, and the OED
You may have seen a comment yesterday by Lisa M. Keefe, Editor of Meatingplace in Print, clarifying that Meatingplace isn't affiliated with industry associations despite the appearance to the contrary on the site where the press release is posted. For more substantive material by Ms. Keefe, check out this bit of her work in Meatingplace, regarding the Hormel debacle, which includes:
Whether the issue is animal handling, pathogens or downer cattle, the goal is to provide context and shift the conversation from how poorly the industry treats its animals to a discussion of evidence showing that the event in question is an anomaly, and how practices are changing as quickly as new information comes to light and business conditions allow them to do so. We need to get that information out of the conversations between meat people and into conversations with consumers, activists and the media.
Then there's this editorial in Meatingplace called "The Eighth Plague" which includes:
[T]ake note of what the eat-less-meat activists have to say. Look for any
small or large way to reduce emissions that won't financially damage
the enterprise. . . . Be willing to bend, so that you don't break. As the veal industry has learned, a few changes can go a long way toward robbing opponents' campaigns of necessary fuel.
This is an invitation to animal "rights" activists and environmentalists to work with the industry, to compromise, to do a little give-and-take so that all parties can in some way claim a victory. Animal advocates can have a slight moral victory (bigger or no crates), environmentalists can have the slight victory that is a modicum of reduction in emissions (as long as it doesn't cost too much to get it), and the industry wins because they get to keep exploiting animals, people and the Earth, while simultaneously claiming to be making the world a better place.
So . . . what's the definition of victory, exactly?
On that note, I sent an e-mail to the folks at the Oxford English Dictionary, out of sheer paranoia. Here it is, followed by their response.
From: Mary Martin1 [mailto:mary@marymartin.net]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:09 AM
To: Customer Support
Subject: Terms and conditions
I am an individual with a paid subscription. Am I permitted to help my
friends and family members by looking up words for them? I wouldn't charge
them for this and they wouldn't have access to my password or user name. And
I can't imagine I'd do this for more than a couple dozen words.
Mary Martin, Ph.D.
——————————
Thank you for your email.
Oxford University Press prohibits publishing or sharing password information to our paid online services with the general public. The type of usage described in your message below does not appear to violate these guidelines.
However, if the login is abused, OUP reserves the right to cancel it.
Please let us know if we may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Customer Support – Online Products
Oxford University Press
Tel: 1-800-334-4249 ext. 6484
Fax: 212-726-6476
E-mail: oxfordonline@oup.com
Visit www.oxfordonline.com <http://www.oxfordonline.com/>
—–Original Message—–
Let the games begin! I already have a handful of requests. I'll probably begin to get to them this weekend.
"a few changes can go a long way toward robbing opponents' campaigns of necessary fuel"…direct from the animal exploitation industry! What more does anyone need to show that PeTA and HSUS are doing more harm than good with campaigns such as Prop 2 in California?
Quote:
"This is an invitation to animal "rights" activists and environmentalists to work with the industry, to compromise, to do a little give-and-take so that all parties can in some way claim a victory. Animal advocates can have a slight moral victory (bigger or no crates), environmentalists can have the slight victory that is a modicum of reduction in emissions (as long as it doesn't cost too much to get it), and the industry wins because they get to keep exploiting animals, people and the Earth, while simultaneously claiming to be making the world a better place."
Francione validated?
Alex… that was very funny. And this is too: "eat-less-meat activists". Talk about inaccurate use of words! Not unlike the "Farm Forward" people who mentioned those on a "plant based diet" rather than "vegans". I think ommissions like this go beyond accidental oversight… into denial.
Regardless, they are certainly desperate to "get their message out". There's hardly an ag blog or site that doesn't urge: "tell your story". I've read it over again many times: Freezing temperatures and loyal dedicated "farmers" tending to the animals they "love" so very much. Being up in the middle of the night to help deliver a calf… hand feeding a runt piglet who will not eat – blah, blah, blah… And I'm sure these are (some) of their stories. But what they fail to include is, the rest of the it. That these animals wouldn't "need" to be delivered from danger if they weren't bred (to be killed) to begin with. It is the classic scenario of putting a dog in a building… setting it on fire – then wondering how (if) you're going to rescue her.
Keefe and many others are always encouraging animal ag to reach for the "high ground". But the truth is they don't want to go anywhere near it because they haven't got an ethical leg to stand on. They refuse to include "morality" in any of their rhetoric. As if that particular (unpleasant) issue should never be questioned.
And the "Eighth Plague" – sure they are anxious to get environmental issues under control… But is animal agriculture ever going to stop with the "feeding the world" mantra, long enough to recognize world starvation due to their "animal feeding" industry? This is a shameful discrace!
Still, we have Grandin who says: "Eating animals is fine"… and we have the reassurance of "humane slaughter"… so what is the contention? Everything seems to be squared away. The well chosen words have done the trick.
But have they?
FSIS DIRECTIVE Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock
Sec. 1902. – No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public policy of the United States unless it is humane.
In all the technical and placating jargon… using specific words that seem so critical, this entire document mentions "humane or inhumane" 43 times – yet the words "kill" or "death" are oddly absent.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISDirectives/6900.2Rev1.pdf
Perhaps this is a "victory" for the animals? They were never murdered, or killed and never met their death. They simply were "humanely" slaughtered, legally butchered and snuffed from the earth by society's club. Staying ever true to what we all know – nice people don't "kill" animals.
Couldn’t agree with Patty, Alex and Bea more. Whether it’s Starbucks sticking fair trade labels on their coffee, Exxon running ads about harnessing the wind or Hormel saying, “this is simply about treating animals humanely because it’s the right thing to do,” corporations will always appropriate and weaken any kind of moral resistance by appearing to embrace it. Fortunately, most people have enough skepticism to disregard a corporate PR release. But when animal advocacy organizations give corporations their seal of approval and credit them with “doing the right thing” it gives the corporations a moral credibility they never could have gotten on their own. And that, unfortunately, is why so many people are so susceptible to the preposterous notion of “humane treatment.”
I'd be curious to know what Oxford says about the (d)evolution of the term "dog" – more specifically, how and why it became slang for a no-good, cheating husband. This use is so contrary the common perception of dogs as exceptionally loyal and loving animals. Seems weird to me.