Skip to main content

I'm a vegetarian, but I'm not so foolish to think Michael Pollan trumps Julia Child

Following my recent column about vegetarianism, I received a wave of hate mail from meat eaters. This came as no surprise -- as food has finally become a political issue in America (as it should), some carnivores have become increasingly aggressive toward anyone or any fact that even vaguely prompts them to critically consider their culinary habit. Although the stereotype imagines vegetarians sententiously screaming at any meat eater they see at the lunch counter or dinner table, I've found quite the opposite to be true. In my personal life, I go out of my way to avoid talking about my vegetarianism while I'm eating with friends, family or work colleagues, but nonetheless regularly find myself being interrogated by carnivores when they happen to notice that I'm not wolfing down a plate of meat.

Having been a vegetarian for more than a decade now, and having been raised in a family of proud meat eaters, I'm going to use this space to publish a brief primer for both vegetarians and those who are considering vegetarianism -- a primer on what kind of blowback you should expect to face when you are forced to publicly explain your personal dietary decision, and what succinct, fact-based responses are most appropriate when confronting the tired cliches that will be thrown at you from enraged carnivores. [. . .] (David Sirota, “A vegetarian’s guide to talking to carnivores,” Salon, 24 August 2011)


The carnivore-in-the-vegetarian's guide to discussing sensibly with its new solely vegetarian self.

David, I'm glad to hear you read the comments. I feel it's always appropriate, but not always a class-circumspect thing to do (or at least to admit to).

I grew up meat-eating in the 70s and 80s. Loved so much of those times, and the food -- the whole pleasure of life learned "encountering" it -- is something I treasure. It may be that someone vegetarian at birth is not missing out on something if they never came to know what tastes, what treasurable stories of experience, meat afforded us, but I think that those of us who went vegan at some point but certainly remembered how much they once enjoyed meat, should always communicate some considerable fidelity to this fact.

You shouldn't be killing animals for food -- to be able to consciously kill an animal is something that if we don't powerfully and fully flinch from, automatically shows us possessed of sadism, some disturbing capacity to switch to a otherwise disconnected self when engaged in acts of violence. But it may really be that the world of experience is wonderful, resplendent, "Julia Child" lessened in not knowing the tastes afforded by meat. (No one in our century-past communicated a love for food that surpassed what she afforded [compared to her joie-de-vivre, our Pollans in fact seem depleted, and as if out of their venerance for unadulterated, rough-skinned vegetables]. The 60s and 70s had abandoned restraint and went whole-hog for pleasure, and this generation of highly evolved people weren't yet one that had abandoned meat. The unfortunate thing about current vegans is that they came on mostly after the 60s and 70s golden ages had passed, and so haven't yet had their time when they didn't also communicate shrewism, scolding, restriction. That'll come, but only after the current depression fully unfolds, another possible world war, and then, finally, accompanying the collective agreement that a golden age is once again fully warranted.)

It's hard for us born loving meat to know for sure, but if true, we shouldn't be afraid to admit this even as we lessen the pleasure we take from fat, expand that we take from vegetables and legumes, and refuse to inconscionably kill what should simply have been respected.

Link: A vegetarian’s guide to talking to carnivores (Salon)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…