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

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...