On Abuse That’s Standard
Branding and Castrating Day at a Family Farm
Mark Bittman has a fascinating opinion piece in today’s New York Times called “Who Protects the Animals?” I’d like to deconstruct it because it speaks to a couple of issues I’ve been thinking about and chatting privately about, one of which could very well end up under the dreaded and often erroneous title “infighting.”
The setting is the most recent Mercy for Animals video, which I gave myself a free pass to not watch, but of which I know more than I’d like to know. The video is placed in the context of the recent introductions of legislation in Florida, Iowa and Minnesota regarding taking photos or film at farms and other operations that use animals for profit. Will Potter‘s the go-to-man for this issue, and his Huffington Post op-ed provides a synoposis if you haven’t been keeping current.
Bittman notes the inconsistencies in the stories of the undercover worker and the management of the dairy farm in question, and it seems like he’s finally getting to the heart of the problem. Let’s deconstruct:
- “this sounds like too many other horror stories of animal cruelty, and frankly — without belittling either situation — the excuses echo Abu Ghraib.” My only comment about this is I wonder how it would be received if it were uttered by a vegan.
- “The root problem is not Espenson or his company, any more than the root problem at Abu Ghraib was Lynndie England. The problem is the system that enables cruelty and a lack not just of law enforcement but actual laws.” I agree with the first sentence, but the second is a problem as the system doesn’t enable cruelty, it is defined by cruelty. And this is where, as diplomatically as possible, and not with an intention to “attack” anyone, I’d like to raise what for me was a significant issue. The premise of the video and many others like it, is that this is cruelty. This is abuse. And the backdrop of the daily operations is, by definition therefore, not cruelty . . . not abuse. Disagree with my premise?
- A few paragraphs later, Bittman writes: “Videotaping at factory farms wouldn’t be necessary if the industry were properly regulated.” In other words, if factory farms just kept to their standard practices, there wouldn’t be a problem. Meanwhile, another couple of paragraphs down, Bittman arrives at . . .
- “The biggest problem of all is that we’ve created a system in which standard factory-farming practices are inhumane . . .” Exactly. He’s got it! He’s so close to realizing that there’s just no way to create and kill animals (at least not in larger numbers, as that’s what he’s addressing) without abusing them! But then he writes, given the numbers, “some abuse is pretty much guaranteed.”
- Just when I think I’ve lost him and he really doesn’t get it because he’s back focusing on the “rotten apple” theory of isolated instances of cruelty, he ends with:
There is, of course, the argument that domesticating animals in order to kill them is essentially immoral; those of us who eat meat choose not to believe this. But in “Bengal Tiger,” a Broadway play set at Baghdad Zoo, the tiger — played by Robin Williams — wonders: “What if my every meal has been an act of cruelty?” The way most animals are handled in the United States right now has to have all of us omnivores wondering the same thing.
And so it ends, acknowledging there’s a “belief” that creating animals just to kill and use them isn’t moral, but not actually addressing that belief. You don’t have to do more than casually mention the belief underlying veganism if you think that the standard operation procedures that farms use–factory farms, small farms, family farms–without a pickaxe in sight, are acceptable.
I’d like to see more exposure of the standard practices: everything involved in the creation and killing of sentient nonhumans on an ordinary day. Perhaps the reason disturbingly few people find them unethical is that most people don’t even know about them. Instead, they are rightfully disgusted by horrifying “abuse,” and then they look for a place where there are no such abuses. And they’re sure to find one.
–The photo above is from “Branding Day,” by Gabe Groves.
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
When a vegan draws an analogy between the modern plight of animals and an injustice such as Abu Ghraib, consumers who eat animal products get intensely uncomfortable. I think there is an instant recognition of the truth, no matter how small and fleeting the kernel that suddenly penetrates through the culture-induced, self-induced fog. This causes an immediate reaction of defensiveness and outrage (that the analogy is “inappropriate”) because no one wants to feel like a criminal and ponder that his or her own behavior could be “immoral” or unethical.
It’s long overdue in the animal liberation movement that we stop worrying about diplomacy and stop handholding those within the movement who feel “attacked” by the truth. Let’s concern ourselves with defending the simple truth; nowadays truth is an endangered species. Please continue to deconstruct mainstream rationalizations and reveal the truth without flinching–for this is the only way truth has ever survived and society comes to see the value of justice and finally desires it.
“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” This was what philosopher Karl Popper wrote. Not to mention, tolerance doesn’t mean to tolerate injustice and to allow oppressors full run of public discourse without challenge.
I think Mark Bittman knows in his heart that “use” is in itself abuse – that “creating animals just to kill and use them” is immoral and indefensible. He “chooses” not to believe it, or at least not to act on it, because it is for him a very inconvenient truth. As Upton Sinclair wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
Good analysis, Mary — and comments, sundog and Ann (I do not understand Mr. Popper’s quote, sundog, though I understand your summation of it) .
I’m partway through reading the 150-plus comments under Bittman’s commentary in the Times, and this is the best one I’ve come across yet (it deserves many more “LIKE” clicks!):
21.
Pranav Merchant
Earth
April 27th, 2011
8:38 am
Dear Mr. Bittman,
I noticed that you used the word “dispatched” to describe what happens to animals at slaughterhouses. Please refrain from using such euphemisms to describe what is murder because that is a cowardly way to word the act. We may not–or may not want to–think of it as such, but to the cows who value their own lives, it would be nothing short of murder.
I should add that the ONLY way to end cruelty towards animals is to end exploitation of them. As long as humans continue to look at animals as resources and not as living beings who deserve to live their lives on this planet we all share, humans will continue to use and abuse them and, consequently, treat them as resources.
The indisputable fact is that human beings perpetrate an unimaginably gargantuan amount of violence towards nonhuman animals. That includes the consumption of meat and dairy. Even if there are claims of “humane treatment” or “humane slaughter”–which are laughable–the truth is there cannot be nonviolent slaughter or nonviolence murder, just as there cannot be nonviolent rape.
If humans really want a peaceful, nonviolent world, then they have to give up all animal products and all animals use because all of it involves domination, force, and violence. That means giving up meat, dairy, eggs, silk, leather, wool, zoos, rodeos, animal experimentation, pets, etc. I should add that humans DO NOT need milk or meat to live healthy, productive lives.
You may mistakenly think this is radical. But it is simply the truth.
Recommended by 15 Readers
It’s great to read something that’s both enjoyable and povrdeis pragmatisdc solutions.
Yes, Philinda. And thanks to your response to something I wrote MONTHS ago (smiles!), I decided to go back and reread what I wrote. Well, I noticed that I said I didn’t understand Mr. Popper’s quote.
So I reread his quote (in sundog’s comment). Voila, this time I DO understand him, thank goodness! I guess lots of reading on lots of subjects, plus new life experiences between then and now, does wonders for one’s comprehension (more smiles!).
eDVlk9 pxwxrgnaplez
AzGz5f aqzuyhqzqgtn
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” Thank you Ann. That describes it entirely!
In fact I’m currently in a conversation with someone who has vested interests in “livestock”. This person wants to be seen as kind and just… She uses many defenses like the practices done to animals are all “approved” by vets and “experts”. But these vets and experts are in the same position that any “employee” is… They will for the most part, agree that whatever is done to animals in the name of “food production” is okay — Their jobs depend on complying with what the bosses require them to say. It’s a self perpetuating lie. And one that consumers gladly buy into too.
While I’m grateful for these investigations and the conversations they trigger… And even for the Bittman’s and Foer’s because at least they initiate the discussion. But without the clear message that it’s impossible to do the “wrong” thing the “right” way – it really won’t change much in the end. Nothing remotely revolutionary here at all. Just the minimal efforts to put in place the most egregious deeds. That leaves a very comfortable, wide birth, middle ground for everyone to settle back into the accepted “norms”. It’s frustrating.