An artist and farmer--Kathrine Dunn of Apifera Farm--that I deeply admire recently posted a call for help on Facebook. It seems that a blogger has decided to write a rather aggressive and mean-spirited post. The blogger takes the stance that it is impossible to care for animals--offering them sanctuary--and also eat animals.
I decided to write a response to the blog. I've also decided to include it here because it bothered me so very deeply. I've been a vegetarian for nearly two decades out of a matter of choice. I made a decision to try to walk in this world as gently as possible and in following through on this choice, I have decided to not take the life of living creatures so that I can eat. In walking non-violently in this world I have also made the decision--and work on it every day--to not behave with violence or aggression toward other people. It's a work in progress.
Here is my comment. If you are moved consider commenting too.
Update:
Why do I call this an act of violence and aggression? I respond to questions on the bloggers site with this:
It is an act of violence and aggression to impose your system of morality on another person--and use that system to judge another--without stopping to consider that the values and morals of another are potentially equally as valid and important to the other. Try some perspective taking, and taking in the experience and views of another person, and you might find more peace, understanding, and progress.
It does no one any good for you to get off your soap box, pull it on your head, and pull it down over your eyes. It is an act of aggression--and awfully imperious--to take a stand that your own personal value system should be privileged over that of another.
Be sure to read the companion post, Vegan Vigilantes: When A Good Idea Strays.
I decided to write a response to the blog. I've also decided to include it here because it bothered me so very deeply. I've been a vegetarian for nearly two decades out of a matter of choice. I made a decision to try to walk in this world as gently as possible and in following through on this choice, I have decided to not take the life of living creatures so that I can eat. In walking non-violently in this world I have also made the decision--and work on it every day--to not behave with violence or aggression toward other people. It's a work in progress.
Here is my comment. If you are moved consider commenting too.
I’ve been a vegetarian for nearly two decades and try to walk as carefully and as gently on this Earth as possible. It deeply saddens me to read this post–not because Katherine has, for whatever her reasons are, chosen to live a lifestyle that involves living closely from the land and eating animal flesh, but because of how she is treated in this blog post by someone that doesn’t know her.
It deeply disturbs me when I see vegans, who by definition choose to live in this world in non-violent ways, transgress against those who do not live a vegan life in ways that are emotionally violent. Katherine deserves more than an aggressive and violent blog post opposing her choices to be a farmer who both deeply respects animals for what she sees as their place in the world.
To me, a vegan–or vegetarian–who holds aggression and violence in their heart toward people who make different choices needs to look more closely at their own motivations and actions. Otherwise what is the point of making a commitment to a life that does not bring harm?
This post brings harm to Katherine. It doesn’t bring love.
Sad, indeed.
Update:
Why do I call this an act of violence and aggression? I respond to questions on the bloggers site with this:
It is an act of violence and aggression to impose your system of morality on another person--and use that system to judge another--without stopping to consider that the values and morals of another are potentially equally as valid and important to the other. Try some perspective taking, and taking in the experience and views of another person, and you might find more peace, understanding, and progress.
It does no one any good for you to get off your soap box, pull it on your head, and pull it down over your eyes. It is an act of aggression--and awfully imperious--to take a stand that your own personal value system should be privileged over that of another.
Be sure to read the companion post, Vegan Vigilantes: When A Good Idea Strays.
Well said thank you.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome Tory. Thanksnforntaking the time to read and comment.
DeleteI am so glad you wrote this. I couldn't agree more. I posted a comment in response to Jo Tyler's post, but it has either been deleted or was never approved. I respect Katherine's work and am saddened that she has been opened up to hostility from Jo's readers.
ReplyDeleteHi Laura --- I am sure Jo's readers are caring, compassionate, and dedicated to what they think is right. Too many of us have not been taught skills at open dialogue--hearing perspectives of others without demanding people see things from our own personal "right" perspective.
DeleteVery well put. Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does! Katherine's behavior shows her respect for animals every day, anyone who visits her farm will see that!
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting, Ruth. You are so right: words alone are not enough. Action is always required to demonstrate the convictions of our heart.
DeleteIt shows her respect for some animals. It also shows her disrespect for others when she kills them and sells their flesh for profit. That is not respect.
DeleteThanks for commenting, Imz. We aren't talking about animals here--we are talking about how to have a dialogue about difficult topics. The point of my post, and comments, is about respecting each other when having a dialogue about differences in values and world views. The original post offers no understanding, acknowledgment, or respect for a world-view that is different than her own.
DeleteHi - I'm wondering Mr. Mihalko - If I should tolerate the point of view of someone who abandons his children and family? Or someone who spends the grocery money on alcohol or gambling? What about the person who "plinks" at squirrels for fun and recreation? These are of course other world views and values... Are you saying their activities are above judgment and criticism?
DeleteOver 200 years ago it would have been socially unacceptable if I were to have denounced a slave owner for his choices... And less than a hundred years ago it would have been totally morally acceptable to deny my children an education - To place them in a field to crop till the sun set... If I were a man the same could have been done to my wife or daughter. I had no obligations to society, to law, to custom or to anyone. I would have been protected by my "world view". So what exactly is the difference in the way that nonhumans are denied their rights to their own bodies? We only do to them what we do because of legal protections of the ownership of "property". But certainly we know that lives aren't like cars, ipods or sneakers.
These lives are connected to individuals who are sentient and who derive benefit of living their lives. Sorry Mr. Mihalko - But the lives of others, no matter how trivial you or Ms. Dunn choose to see them as - matters to them. They have done us no harm and do not deserve to be "dispatched" as a material commodity.
So where do you draw the "fairness" line regarding world views that are different from your own? The slave holder? The one who betrays his children? The squirrel killer? Or the methodical calculations of the lamb killer? Frankly - The line is so fuzzy between varying degrees of wrongness, I simply fail to see the difference. But I do know what's right - And leaving life to it's own purpose fits that criteria just fine.
Thanks again for your comment, Bea. While you bring up a variety of interesting questions about slaves, squirrels, family relationships, alcohol and gambling, child abuse, an animal slaughter house workers, none of them really address what is being discussed here: is it appropriate, moral, or just to act with violence and aggression toward another person when advocating treating animals in a way that is free from violence and aggression.
DeleteI also invite you to read my blog post. I've been a vegetarian for nearly 20 years and have made a life long commitment of nonviolence.
Lastly, if you prefer to address me with formality, I prefer Dr. Mihalko over Mr. Mihalko.
Katherine's blog has been a primary inspiration for me and I have gone from just talk to becoming deeply, hands-on involved with fostering animals. She is such a shining, honest, loving light on our earth. Anyone with good sense would do well to encourage and support all the good she does and keep judgement out of it.
ReplyDeleteMelissa
I think it is also important to recognize that people who are vegan, and believe in ending suffering of animals and not using them for food, also have a very important viewpoint. I adore Katherine's art--it reminds me so much of a more earthy version of Marc Chagall, who is among my favorite artists.
Deletei believe the article in question is pointing out the hypocrisy of calling a farm which kills animals for food a sanctuary. how is it possible to respect an animal and kill him or her for one's own personal gratification? the Golden Rule should be followed for all species and not just a select few which humans consider worthy. you mention choices but completely ignore the victims who have no choice in the matter of their life or death. it is as much of a choice as harming or killing another human being is, but to do so is in no way just or ethical. as Leo Tolstoy said "A man (or women) can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he (or she) eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.”
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment, Anonymous. I fear you missed the hypocrisy of the original post--supporting a non-violent vegan life style while acting with violence toward another being makes for a very disingenuous stance from the original blogger.
DeleteFurther more, of course it is impossible to understand that it is possible to eat meat while respecting life when you come from an intellectual stance that judges eating meat to be morally wrong. It is the worst kind of ego-centrism to judge others by your own standards without recognition that the whole world does not share one set of values. Sad, indeed, to have such limited vision.
DeleteJason, you are deliberately (mis)interpreting "disagreement" and "objection" as "violence". That's pretty disingenuous. Whenever someone disagrees with something you're doing, that's violent? If person A witnessed person B abusing a child in the street and spoke up against it, then person A is being "violent"? Was MLK "violent"?
DeleteThanks for commenting again, Imz. We aren't talking about Dr. King or child abuse. We are talking about an attempt to persuade someone that one particular world view is the only appropriate world view through an imperious demeanor. It is a deeply violent act to attempt to colonize your world view onto another.
DeleteI'm curious - Your claim is that words or vocalizing an ideology can be "deeply violent". Would you say that the slaughter of another creature --- no matter how proficiently executed is also a violent act? I'm hoping you'll own the world in it's entire meaning...
DeleteBea, thank you for taking the time to comment. I'm not discussing the relative merits and differences of vegan and omnivorous diets. That's an important dialogue, but not the dialogue I am having. I'm talking about violence directed toward people in the service of advocating for non-violence toward animals.
DeleteBut the differences of identifying what is or isn't "violent" is exactly what's at stake here. Ms. Dunn isn't "nonviolent" towards animals --- She's only somewhat merciful to "some" and very "violent" to others. Unless of course you don't see the slaughter of sentient creatures as a violent act? Do you? Thank you.
DeleteAgain, Bea, we are talking about how people are using violence and aggression to support a world view that is anti-violent. I'm not discussing the food system or food choices.
DeleteBut why shouldn't we talk about Dr. King? Didn't he try to impose his particular world view was the only appropriate world view -- his world view being that black people are equal to whites? By your definition, Dr. King must have been committing "violence" each time he gave a speech, since many people disagreed with him and yet he tried to impose this world view!
DeleteOr does it boil down to the "imperious demeanor" then -- MLK didn't have an "imperious demeanor", but Jo Tyler does? If that's true, then you really ought to be more specific. You argue that a blog post (!) is violent (when the whole point of the post is to speak against actual violence), but you don't say how it's violent other than the "imperious demeanor". So please, elaborate. Where is the imperious demeanor in Jo Tyler's post? How is it "violent" to simply have a point of view that disagrees with another?
Thanks for your comment, Imz. If you'd like to discuss Dr. King and non-violent resistance, I'd encourage you to do a little study of your own and learn the background of what non-violence is and is not. Dr. King spoke extensively about the notion that non-violence resisters do not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent. Rather, the goal of a non-violent resister is to win the friendship and understanding of the other. King wrote in 1957 "the aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community...the end is reconciliation, the end is redemption."
DeleteThe attacks of on person and her way of life is not non-violent resistance. It is not an effort to build a beloved community. It's end is not reconciliation and redemption. It is a petty, violent, and aggressive attack on other set of values.
The original post had nothing to do with non-violence or Dr. Martin Luther King. Your comment has nothing to do with non-violence or Dr. Martin Luther King, either. If you wish to invoke non-violent resistance, or the civil rights movement, please take the time to carefully study the practice. To invoke non-violence to support violence, is ridiculous and cheapen those who showed us the fierce power of non-violent resistance.
Leo Tolstoy came from a privileged family background - and lived in an area where it was feasible to have small agricultural plots of land to grow vegetables . To bad he never got the chance to visit the Inuits as one example of humans that need meat in their diet. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet). I only wonder if he would tell them they were just eating meat out of personal gratification while being "immoral" that they were feeding themselves and their families.
ReplyDeleteYou make an important point, Sherena. Many people, when taking an all-or-nothing view on food policies, neglect to think about the economics of food choices. Our economic situation, along with culture and class, greatly influences what food choices are available for us.
DeleteThe author never said it is impossible to care for animals, to offer them sanctuary, while at the same time eating other animals. She made it clear that she believes Dunn's care for the animals-in-need she takes in is sincere and heartfelt: "Learning about Dunn’s sincere and heartfelt care for animals-in-need...."
ReplyDeleteThe post is pointing out the contradiction between saving and caring for some animals and breeding and killing others. It doesn't make any sense to bring harm to others when we have no need. We do not need to eat animals or animal products in order to live and thrive in this world. Doing so brings unnecessary violence and harm to others. Where is their choice? We need to speak out for those who get no choice.
There is nothing violent or aggressive in the author's post towards Dunn. The post shows nothing more than the truth of what Dunn does (and countless others who love some animals but dine on others), and it highlights just how strange it truly is, to offer such love and sanctuary to some, but then eat others.
It's not about imposing our views of non-violence onto others. It's about asking those who eat animal products to stop imposing *their* views on others (animals are others): the view that we have a right to take the lives of others and bring harm to them for things of which we have no need. Who are we to decide we can take the lives of others when we have no need? Why do we have this right to bring harm to others? Inherently, we do not have this right, and we should not have this right legally.
Further, you state that "This post brings harm to Katherine. It doesn’t bring love." No, I am sorry but you are wrong. Pointing out what Dunn does on her farm, offering sanctuary to some and slaughtering others for profit and pleasure, does not bring Katherine Dunn harm. It may not be pleasant to have a mirror held up to one's actions and see the truth in that reflection. If it's so unpleasant to see it for what it really is, then perhaps we ought to change, and stop bringing needless harm and violence to others for what we have no need. In fact the entire point of the author's post is to *stop* bringing harm to others.
What evidence is there that one does not require the use of animals other than personal values? The point here is that you, and the blogger, are making a personal value judgement and then expect everyone else to agree, conform, and accept your personal views of the world. Why should your view be privileged over another that believes that one should life off the land, animals, and plants around us?
DeleteScientific evidence is what makes it clear that animal product consumption is not nutritionally required. You can start by looking at the official statements to this effect that are put out by the ADA and USDA. You can consult nutrition research powerhouses such as the Harvard School of Public Health. Or you can, as I have, read the dozens upon dozens of peer-reviewed scientific studies that, as a whole, contributed to the ADA's and other nutrition organizations' official conclusions. As it is with climate change, evolution, or the harms of smoking, the data is in. The science is clear on the (lack of) human nutritional requirements for animal products. Science deniers try to claim these issues are undecided, or personal, but scientific facts are not a matter of personal opinion. You can't "teach the controversy" when there is no real scientific controversy.
DeleteThere are reasons why some people need animal products (living in subsistence cultures or in harsh environments, for example), but these reasons simply don't apply to the vast majority of citizens in modern developed countries. For these citizens, eating animal products is an act of habit, convenience, taste, or misinformation, but it is not an act of nutritional need. There's no value judgement here; facts are facts. I eat meat, but I understand that it is not required of me to do so. I just like the taste. The only value judgement Anonymous above made was to suggest that taste and profit aren't good enough justification for killing the animals. She/he is entitled to that opinion. But the lack of nutritional requirement for meat? That isn't an opinion, it's just a fact.
Hi John, thanks for taking the time to comment. The purpose of this post isn't to discuss the relative merits of vegan/vegetarians vs. omnivore based diets. Rather, it's about how we might engage in dialogue in ways that invite curiosity and understanding rather than creating alienation and violence.
DeleteYou are looking at research and presenting data that supports your view, for your diet, for your needs. This is, in a way, exactly my point. You are alienating other people, with other data, and other viewpoints, and other needs. You are seeing the world from your lens and failing to consider other perspectives.
Further, it's ludicrous to suggest that a one-size fits all meat free diet is right for all people, all of the time. There isn't research, anywhere, that supports that. At various times "Science" produced by research powerhouses have substantiated all sorts of claims that are later untrue. A few examples: the world is no longer flat, autism is not caused by vaccination, women with emotions are no longer viewed has having their uterus wandering around inside their body (hysteria), zinc doesn't actually cure colds, and the list goes on.
Jason, thanks so much for your thoughtful response to the attack on Katherine. I wish these militant vegans would focus their anger on the evils of factory farming instead.
ReplyDeleteFactory farming is rather horrific, I think for many vegans who want to evangelize their position, they deeply feel that all killing is wrong. That is such an important issue to discuss, and got lost in how the blog writer elected to try to colonize her ideas upon other people rather than speaking from a place of personal moral convictions.
DeleteThanks so much for your kind words, and stopping in to read.
The arguments on both sides are inexhaustible and I'm confident they will go on without any help from me. Here's the thing I can't get over: why couldn't the blogger have described Katherine's farm and philosophy and made her points without _naming_ Katherine and the farm? In what way did that actually benefit anything?
ReplyDeleteYes, Mark. Exactly. My intention in responding here wasn't to comment on the merits of being vegan or not. The ridiculousness in supporting a sense of universal humaneness by attacking an individual was what got me to respond.
DeleteHi Jason, I submitted a comment earlier, but do not see it posted. I see new comments since then and am wondering if mine went through? I think it would be courteous to allow me to respond, as I allowed you to do on my blog.
DeleteThanks,
Jo (author of the blog post you are discussing)
Hi Jo, I generally do not post comments here until I have sufficient time to make a personal response. In that my patients require my undivided attention during the day, and that I only have a finite amount of free time, moderating comments can take some time.
DeleteI did note the response you posted here is the same response you posted on your own blog. While I am happy to continue a dialogue here, I find it odd that when I tried to respond to your comment to me on your blog I discovered you had closed further comments on your blog. It seems strange to want the courtesy of responding here to the same comment you are not allowing anyone the courtesy of responding to on your own blog.
Jason, can you please specify exactly which parts of Jo's post you find "violent"?
ReplyDeleteJo's post was about the very dissonant relationship our culture has with animals, and Jo used Katherine's blog as an example of this, a case study. Never in the post did Jo do any name-calling, nor did she even question Katherine's sincerity. She was utterly polite, stated the facts directly off Katherine's own public blog, and then provided her own comments about our modern culture.
I am a meat-eater myself, and I must say I am profoundly puzzled at how you and Katherine saw even one glimmer of "violence" in Jo's essay. She was discussing a cultural pattern and used an example from publicly-available text. Calling this "violence" is to dramatically misuse this word.
Dear Anonymous, Thanks for your comment. Have you read my the follow up blog post that is linked at the bottom of this one? You've missed the point that this is not about the relative merits of a vegan versus omnivorous diet--it is about how we talk with each other, how we impose our views on each other, and questions that are worthwhile to consider when doing so.
DeleteImposing one world view and set of morals onto another person is inherently a violent act. It's not a misuse of the word. It is an intentional use of the word violence that reflects a considerable amount of thought.
"Imposing"? So passionate speech and words are considered "force"? Really? So The First Amendment of the United States Constitution doesn't count much for you if you're using words that "impose" or ideology that you view as "violent". Wow.
ReplyDeleteYou've missed the point, Bea. The question here is thinking deeply about the morality and justness of imposing one view upon another without reflection on all the varied implications that that imposition causes. There is a significant difference between passionate speech and demanding that people follow one particular set of morals and values. I'd encourage you to read both of my posts on this subject.
Delete