Chapter 5: In Their Eyes (August 22nd, 2009)
I took a drive up to Farm Sanctuary in Orland, California this weekend. It was the second time that I have been there, but the last time I stopped by it was late in the day and I was not able to spend much time or take the tour, so I didn’t get the full effect. During the almost three hour drive each way, I had some time for reflection on why I was going there and what organizations like this one mean to me.
Most of my friends and acquaintances (At least the ones that rate going to lunch together) know that I am a vegetarian. Technically, until yesterday I was a “lacto-ovo-vegetarian”, meaning that I don’t eat any form of meat, but would eat eggs and dairy. I had tried to be selective with dairy and eggs and shop with a conscience. When people hear about my diet for the first time, they are generally curious as to when and why I chose this path. The “when” is easy: May 16th, 2007 was the last time I knowingly ate any form of meat. The “why” is generally a little bit harder to explain in a short conversation. The brief version is that one day, while driving to work, I ran over a squirrel in the road and my reaction to this was absolute horror. In that moment, I could no longer rectify my feelings over what had just happened with the knowledge of where my food came from and I knew I could never eat meat again. That story is true but, as with most complex things in life, there is a bit more to it than that.
Growing up, I really never thought very much about food. Looking back, I truly feel that this was by design. Several years ago, I read a book called “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society” by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. It is a very fascinating book that places a significant focus on the conditioning that soldiers are subjected to. Without going into all of the statistics, during post combat interviews with World War I and World War II soldiers, it was discovered that the over whelming majority of them would not intentionally fire their weapons at the enemy, even in the most life-threatening of situations. In most cases, they would pretend to fire or deliberately aim high to avoid taking a human life. The revulsion toward taking another life was just too strong for most to overcome, and the stories from those who had to come to terms with the lives they took can be heartbreaking. Leading up to the Vietnam War, the US military wanted to increase their “kill rates” in order to give themselves an edge over their enemy combatants who shared a similar reluctance to kill. One of the easiest ways to subdue this effect was the increased use of ranged weapons such as missiles, bombs, and long-range artillery. It is easy to understand that in the moment that the action is taken, it is much easier to kill that which you cannot see as a result of inherent distance. Beyond that, there were several subtle ways that they went about increasing the shoot to kill rates on the ground. One of the first was objectification through terminology. This can range from phrases such as “Engage the target” which removes any essence of humanity from the “target” to the vulgar in which the enemy is labeled in pejoratives which also serve to obscure the fact that they are a person. A second approach was through muscle memory and conditioning. The use of human silhouettes in target practice combined with the repetition of drills and the rewards associated with successful completion did much to overcome the natural resistance that most of us have to firing when we find a human form in front of us.
Coming from a military background, I do understand that war is an ugly but often necessary thing. The world we live in is not a perfect one by any means, and there are times when abject force is required to save lives, and this does require certain coping mechanisms in order to be effective (Although none of the tactics described above are very effective in dealing with the emotional and psychological aftermath). As I read this book it raised some alarms for me. While the military may have applied many of these tactics, they certainly didn’t invent them and they are not the only ones routinely applying them against groups who may be completely unaware. This is where this comes back to food.
I believe that the same tactics that were just discussed were instrumental in shaping my diet growing up. In the same way that it is easier to drop a bomb on a target that you cannot clearly see, it is much easier to eat food when the cacophony and terror of a slaughterhouse is invisible. It has been said, to paraphrase, that to witness the goings on in a slaughterhouse is to become a vegetarian. While I have never personally seen the inside of one of these places, I don’t have to in order to recognize that I do not want any association to it.
Objectification is also applied to our food and examples of this abound. Probably the first one that I recognized was the Bible where Genesis 1:26 states: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” I have heard this paraphrased so many times as a license for what amounts to horrific abuses over animals. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that “dominion” does not mean “subjugation”. While I would not claim to know the mind of God, I would suspect that he intended man to act as stewards rather than callous oppressors.
Few images disgust me as much as the use of animals to sell animal products. Whether it is cartoon pigs hawking pork products or manipulative images such as California’s “Happy Cows”, these are simply propaganda intended to hide the truth behind these items and they do a very good job. The “cute” label affixed to a clean wrapped package is a mask applied to the process that hides behind the supermarket shelves.
Which brings me to the term “farm”. A few years ago, if I heard that term, I would think of something bucolic, a scene out of “Babe” maybe. The realities are much harsher than the fantasy. Family farms have been dying off since the 1950s when then Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, exhorted the industry to “get big or get out” (Earl Butts would subsequently adopt and adapt this concept in the 1970s). Today the farm is a place of suffering and fear, and a soul crushing environment for both the animals and the human participants. If you are interested to see just how bad it has become, the documentary “Earthlings” is available for viewing on-line (Just Google it) but I have to warn you that I could not sit through it and there are things you will see that cannot be unseen or forgotten - Things that will make you question the very fiber of human morality and make you angry.
As I started to see patterns between the book I had read and the food I ate, I am ashamed to admit that I spent a lot of time in denial. Looking back, I feel a lot of guilt for my role in the suffering of animals, but none is more poignant than for those I affected during the period of time between when I first became aware and when I chose to make a difference in my life. My dog, Heidi, was the final catalyst in my transformation. Heidi is a very important member of our family. We don’t have kids, but I find myself questioning whether my affection and devotion to a human child could be any stronger than the bond I have with Heidi. While I had pets growing up, Heidi was the first animal in whose eyes I saw a reflection of myself. I can look in Heidi’s eyes and see whether she is happy, afraid, guilty, excited…she is a living, breathing, sentient friend. While I know she is not human, she is not a pet either. She is our responsibility and we have a relationship that transcends her being an object or a possession.
Since this recognition with Heidi, I have had the opportunity to see the same “life” in the eyes of countless animals and I can no longer pretend that they do not have the same “joie de vivre” or lust for life. I challenge you to try it the next time you have the opportunity to gaze into the eyes of another creature. Animals are not objects or property for us to do with as we please. There is a famous quote by Gandhi that states, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. A nation is nothing but an extension of its people.
The truth is I do not eat meat because I do not feel “great” in doing so. I do not eat meat because I cannot pretend that the living, breathing animals who suffer in this process are unaware of their suffering and devoid of fear. I can’t, and more importantly won't, pretend it is okay. Starting yesterday, I will no longer eat dairy products or eggs because I cannot convince myself that doing so is not an affront to the animals who sacrifice in the process. “Cage-free” labels and “Free range” are definitely steps in the right direction, but they gloss over the fact that these animals are not living in a natural way and they still suffer indignities such as forced perpetual gestation that I would hope thinking people would not tolerate.
As I look at the world around me and find myself questioning whether things are getting better or worse when it comes to animal ethics, I take hope in the words of Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Changing my lifestyle was a big commitment and sharing my feelings on this issue is a continuance of the same. Hearts and minds are difficult to change once they are set in motion on a given path, but I hope that this may cause you to look at the world close to you a little differently. If you would like to learn more about these issues, I would recommend the following link as a start (http://farmsanctuary.org/farm). Where you choose to go from there is up to you.
