In the interest of full disclosure, I am a vegetarian but not a vegan, and quite ashamed about it. I try to stick to organic yogurt, and cage-free eggs when I buy eggs, and I don’t eat ice cream or drink milk as a general rule, but that’s a pretty small concession to veganism, and I admit it honestly, if not freely. It should be assumed that the following applies to “factory-farms,” not necessarily operations like family-owned farms, kosher facilities, or certified humane businesses. Whether or not these other types of farms are acceptable alternatives is another question, which may be addressed here at a later date, though I’m not making any promises.
So, it’s a pretty miserable life being an egg laying hen. Hens are debeaked, with hot irons, because the horrendous conditions in which they are kept can induce destructive behavior such as cannibalism. 98% of egg-laying hens “live” in stacked battery cages, with 5-7 birds in space not really adequate for long term residence for one: 20x24”. They’re improperly fed to manipulate their egg production. They lose their feathers from malnutrition and their feet are destroyed by the harsh metal floors they have to stand on. The egg industry also feeds the slaughter. Any male chicks which are born are killed, as they have no use for egg laying. According to PETA, they’re often killed in a high-speed grinding machine called the macerator. The hens, who are exhausted by the malnutrition and overproduction, not to mention osteoporosis, are worn out and therefore shipped to slaughter around 2 years of age, one-fifth the potential life-span of a chicken.
Dairy cows in factory farms also suffer. There are approximately 9 million cows on dairy farms, some 13 million less than in 1950. Yet milk production is up, an indication of the unnatural and demanding position dairy cows are in. They are kept constantly pregnant, and never given the chance to actually raise their young. Male calves are taken away when they’re a day old and fed a milk substitute, destined for the veal market. Females are slaughtered or “groomed” for dairy production. Through genetic manipulation, antibiotics, and hormones cows are forced to produce an unnatural quantity of milk. Some cows are kept chained to poles on concrete floors while others are crammed into over-crowded mud lots. Grass doesn’t even come into the equation, as their feed consists of various animal parts, even including cow meat. This particular abomination is what gave rise to the mad cow problems being experienced, particularly in Britain, a few years ago. One of the most frequent disorders affecting dairy cows is mastitis, a painful inflammation of the mammary glands, in part due to the automated milking systems employed by high-yield dairy farmers. Here’s something particularly disturbing from PETA factsheets:
Studies have shown that providing cows with cleaner housing, more space, and better diets, bedding, and care lowers the SCC of their milk and their incidence of mastitis.(15) A Danish study of cows subjected to automated milking systems found “acutely elevated cell counts during the first year compared with the previous year with conventional milking. The increase came suddenly and was synchronized with the onset of automatic milking.”(16) Yet instead of improving conditions on factory farms or easing cows’ production burden, the dairy industry is exploring the use of cloned cattle who have been genetically manipulated to be resistant to mastitis.(17)
Rather than consider a little bit of kindness or compassion, dairy farmers are trying to make Frankencows.
We shouldn’t kid ourselves. Eggs and dairy aren’t harmless, especially when we don’t pay attention to where they come from. It isn’t easy to give up, or even cut back on, the foods we love. But that omelet may come at the price of everything that’s supposed to be good in humanity.
And if the suffering of animals doesn’t bother you, you should see what the livestock industry is doing to people.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
And now for something brief and frivolous. . .
I hate bumper stickers. If you want to brag that your kid is an honor student, fine, though don't expect me to really care. If you want to put some insulting, pseudo-funny one liner on your car, go for it. You'll come off like a shmuck, but hey, that's your business. The sports you love, the country you're from, some reference to your profession, be my guest. But political and missionizing bumper stickers really shouldn't exist. Granted, the ones that piss me off are the ones I disagree with, but I'm fair enough to say that even the stickers I like shouldn't be on cars. This is not a question of freedom of speech. I firmly believe that people should be able to shout their opinions from soap boxes, blogs, and letters to the editor, even if they happen to be offensive or wrong. But the problem with bumper stickers is that, unlike the above-mentioned venues, they provide no opportunity for a dissenting response, no opening for discussion. I could honk my horn at you perhaps, or key your car in the parking lot, but that's not really appropriate nor does it actually count as legitimate debate. The political or prosletyzing bumper sticker isn't just supporting your cause, it's a slap in the face to any driver behind you who disagrees. You're saying, "you have to care about my opinion, but I don't have to care about yours." Moreover, it's cowardly; you remain in complete anonymity, giving no one a chance to confront you about your opinions (yes, I use a pseudonym for this blog, but you still have access to me through email and the comments setting on this blog). And really, whose mind do you think you'll change with a bumper sticker anyway? As I think a comedian once said, "I don't get the bumper stickers that proclaim the divinity of Jesus. Really, how gullible do you think the Jews are that all it takes is a bumper sticker to convert?" Or something like that. So keep your politics and your religious beliefs off your car. It's classier that way.
Monday, July 24, 2006
In the meantime. . .
So, it would seem by now that I should have written subsequent entries on issues relevant to vegetarianism. But, I haven't. You should learn that I sometimes get really behind in this sort of thing. Especially since I have tried to make these entries reasonably articulate and to get my facts straight when I am citing facts. It's always easier when I can just spew out my numerous opinions and not feel obligated to quote statistics. However, if anything I wrote in the last entry touched you, please go to www.farmusa.org or www.peta.org. Yes, PETA can be a little crazy at times, but they're a good resource for getting started.
Watching this "American Dad" episode makes me think that an upcoming entry will also be devoted to issues of sex-ed, and also probably the current war on birth control. At any rate, just a heads up, since I feel like I've been remiss in my updating.
Some topics for discussion in the meantime: Why would cartoonists draw udders on male cows? How stupid can a person be? And also, reflect on this line from Hoodwinked: Critters have feelings too.
--Aine Bina
Watching this "American Dad" episode makes me think that an upcoming entry will also be devoted to issues of sex-ed, and also probably the current war on birth control. At any rate, just a heads up, since I feel like I've been remiss in my updating.
Some topics for discussion in the meantime: Why would cartoonists draw udders on male cows? How stupid can a person be? And also, reflect on this line from Hoodwinked: Critters have feelings too.
--Aine Bina
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Go Vegetarian, Part I
Well, I put it off for several months, and I think I deserve some recognition of my restraint. But here is my exhortation to go vegetarian. First, a note on etymology: vegetarian comes from “vegetare” which is Latin and means “to enliven.” It comes up sometimes, so just FYI. Also, if you remain completely unmoved by what I’m about to tell you, don’t ever ask a vegetarian if she eats animal crackers. It’s the dumbest, most annoying joke imaginable.
Vegetarianism is the right thing to do. The first, but most certainly not the last, reason to eschew meat, and perhaps even eggs and dairy if you have the strength and dedication, is that to consume animal products causes animal suffering. At a very basic level, death is something that all animals try desperately to avoid. Animals die for you to eat meat, and even if one could imagine that there are completely painless, fearless ways to slaughter an animal, and it seems unlikely, you are robbing them of the enjoyment of life. And animals do enjoy it. If you have a pet, you know this.
But if needlessly killing a sentient being doesn’t bother you, then what about the acute suffering that animals go through as they are raised for your plate? Unless you are buying certified organic and cruelty-free, then you are contributing to the life-long torture of farm animals. According to FARM (www.farmusa.org), some 300 million turkeys and 9 billion chickens are slaughtered for human consumption. In factory farms, poultry is housed in sheds with roughly 10,000 birds to a shed. The animals are fattened up as quickly as possible, and many collapse under their own weight, and are then unable to get food and water or protect themselves from the mass of other birds. The sheds aren’t kept clean, and there develops a build-up of sulfides, methane, and ammonia. The birds are only taken out of these sheds to be crammed into wooden cages for transport to slaughter. I’ve seen rescued turkeys who had to be supported by a sling (for more stories of animal rescues, visit www.animalsanctuary.org ).
Then there are the cows. Beef cattle are kept in feed lots, where there is no shelter, no grass, no space; there are tens of thousands of cows kept in a single lot. Cattle are dehorned, castrated, and branded without anesthetic.
And of course, the pigs. Breeding sows are kept pregnant almost all of the time, the only respite is the 2-4 weeks (as opposed to the natural 12 weeks) of nursing 10-12 pigs. The gestation crates are so narrow that the sows cannot move. The farrowing pens are not much better. After 3-4 years the sows are sent to slaughter. After premature weaning, the piglets are put in tiny crates and fed synthetic formula, where they, like the cattle, are castrated and tagged without benefit of anesthesia. They are then moved to overcrowded feeding lots for six months before slaughter.
During transport, animals are deprived of food and water for hours. If they’re too weak to walk to the killing floor, they’re dragged. Sometimes animals are skinned, dismembered, or even boiled alive while still conscious.
And I haven’t even gotten to the egg-layers and dairy cows.
Vegetarianism is the right thing to do. The first, but most certainly not the last, reason to eschew meat, and perhaps even eggs and dairy if you have the strength and dedication, is that to consume animal products causes animal suffering. At a very basic level, death is something that all animals try desperately to avoid. Animals die for you to eat meat, and even if one could imagine that there are completely painless, fearless ways to slaughter an animal, and it seems unlikely, you are robbing them of the enjoyment of life. And animals do enjoy it. If you have a pet, you know this.
But if needlessly killing a sentient being doesn’t bother you, then what about the acute suffering that animals go through as they are raised for your plate? Unless you are buying certified organic and cruelty-free, then you are contributing to the life-long torture of farm animals. According to FARM (www.farmusa.org), some 300 million turkeys and 9 billion chickens are slaughtered for human consumption. In factory farms, poultry is housed in sheds with roughly 10,000 birds to a shed. The animals are fattened up as quickly as possible, and many collapse under their own weight, and are then unable to get food and water or protect themselves from the mass of other birds. The sheds aren’t kept clean, and there develops a build-up of sulfides, methane, and ammonia. The birds are only taken out of these sheds to be crammed into wooden cages for transport to slaughter. I’ve seen rescued turkeys who had to be supported by a sling (for more stories of animal rescues, visit www.animalsanctuary.org ).
Then there are the cows. Beef cattle are kept in feed lots, where there is no shelter, no grass, no space; there are tens of thousands of cows kept in a single lot. Cattle are dehorned, castrated, and branded without anesthetic.
And of course, the pigs. Breeding sows are kept pregnant almost all of the time, the only respite is the 2-4 weeks (as opposed to the natural 12 weeks) of nursing 10-12 pigs. The gestation crates are so narrow that the sows cannot move. The farrowing pens are not much better. After 3-4 years the sows are sent to slaughter. After premature weaning, the piglets are put in tiny crates and fed synthetic formula, where they, like the cattle, are castrated and tagged without benefit of anesthesia. They are then moved to overcrowded feeding lots for six months before slaughter.
During transport, animals are deprived of food and water for hours. If they’re too weak to walk to the killing floor, they’re dragged. Sometimes animals are skinned, dismembered, or even boiled alive while still conscious.
And I haven’t even gotten to the egg-layers and dairy cows.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Movie Review: An Inconvenient Truth
Do you know how many polar bears drowned due to global warming last year? Al Gore does, and the statistic is part of his presentation on global warming that, intercut by interviews and images of Al Gore on his environment crusade, is presented in "An Inconvenient Truth." Al Gore is funny, engaging, and heartfelt in this movie which presents global warming in a way that is easy to absorb for the average viewer, even if you aren't a scientist or a hard-core environmentalist. Well, at least I think. I am a pretty hard-core environmentalist (or at least a poseur of one) and have a reasonably good understanding of science. The graphics are wonderful and scenes from Al Gore's political past of trying to fight this in America will touch and infuriate you. Gore comes across not so much as preachy, but coaxing and supportive.
This movie was particularly helpful for me because, though I've never been skeptical about global warming, I have been unclear as to how scientists were distinguishing this from normal warming trends in the Earth's history. And now I know. Though we are currently at about the same level as previous peak temperatures of long ago Earth, as determined by ice sample analyses, the carbon levels in the atmosphere are at all time highs and are continuing to grow, and we know that heat and carbon go together. Which means that current heat is not abnormal, in the scheme of the great geological past, but it will get hotter. Every scientific article published in a peer reviewed journal agrees with this evaluation. It is only in the lay-world that there is doubt about global warming. And we must not doubt any longer. I cannot convince you to care about the extinction of species, or the houses that are collapsing in greenland as a result of melting permafrost, or future generations of refugees who will be forced to leave coastal areas, but you should know that you are responsible for this.
To learn more about global warming and what you can do to reduce your carbon emissions visitclimatecrisis.net Go see the movie. It's worth it.
This movie was particularly helpful for me because, though I've never been skeptical about global warming, I have been unclear as to how scientists were distinguishing this from normal warming trends in the Earth's history. And now I know. Though we are currently at about the same level as previous peak temperatures of long ago Earth, as determined by ice sample analyses, the carbon levels in the atmosphere are at all time highs and are continuing to grow, and we know that heat and carbon go together. Which means that current heat is not abnormal, in the scheme of the great geological past, but it will get hotter. Every scientific article published in a peer reviewed journal agrees with this evaluation. It is only in the lay-world that there is doubt about global warming. And we must not doubt any longer. I cannot convince you to care about the extinction of species, or the houses that are collapsing in greenland as a result of melting permafrost, or future generations of refugees who will be forced to leave coastal areas, but you should know that you are responsible for this.
To learn more about global warming and what you can do to reduce your carbon emissions visit
Thursday, June 08, 2006
A Marriage of Equals
Here are two pieces from the Washington Post:
Gay Marriage amendment Fails in Senate
Washington Sketch
The first is an article, the second an editorial. Both concern the re-introduced marriage amendment. All I can say is, I am ashamed for my country. Let us ignore, for the moment, whether I support gay marriage or not. This matter is not for the federal constitution. Marriage is a matter of interpersonal relationships, not a crucial government issue. If the marriage amendment, which would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, became a part of the Constitution, it would be the only constitutional article of its kind. To incorporate marriage into the Constitution is to say that the very structure of our government and our nation is dependent upon a particular type of personal relationship among our citizens. How incredibly weak and ridiculous does that make the USA sound?
Now to what the amendment is about. To define marriage as the union between one man and one woman is to leave democracy behind and turn the USA into a theocracy. There is no secular reason to keep homosexuals from marrying. After all, partnership is partnership. Two people of the same sex can have a joint household, combine their assets, and care for each other in times of need just as two people of opposite sexes can. There is no anthropological reason to assume the necessity of the nuclear family with one father, one mother, and 2.3 children. In fact, societies where there is traditionally strong ties between extended kin generally have lower incidences of major depression.
The religious reason lies in the belief of orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims that sexuality cannot be separated from procreation without being sinful. Hence the protester quoted in the editorial who cites the danger of homosexuality encouraging masturbation. After all, one cannot create children through masturbation, so masturbation is sinful. Edited to add, in response to a note: I know that Orthodox Jews do not consider sexuality per se sinful, and that enjoyment of the sex act is considered necessary for both partners and that physical and spiritual fulfillment in this case are intertwined. However, my understanding is that Orthodox Jews understand the story of Onan and Tamar as an injunction against masturbation, and of course Leviticus forbids a person to lay with a man as with a woman, which is hard to interpret in any way that doesn't relate to homosexuality. So sex only becomes legitimate in a procreative model, i.e., man and woman. However, I do not know what the opinion of Orthodox Jews on birth control is, so I am more than willing to be educated on this, or corrected if my understanding about the Orthodox Jews and the Onanian dogma is wrong.
This belief is incredibly archaic. We live in an era where contraceptive is safer and more reliable than ever, AIDS is sweeping through Africa and India, and the globe is becoming grossly over-populated. Besides which, how is this anyone's business? How did these "activists" ever get the idea that what goes on in other people's private lives is their concern? If I choose to marry another woman, how does that affect anyone else? It certainly doesn't demean heterosexual marriages. Denmark, the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, has a divorce rate of 2.81 per 1000 people, as opposed to the prejudiced USA's number of 4.95 per 1000 people.
The truth is that numerous kinds of sex acts, including masturbation and homosexuality, are known in nature. In fact, anyone who has ever had a dog hump his leg knows this. So there goes the belief that homosexuality is unnatural, practiced only by degenerates. Of course, there are some who would argue that the bestial nature of these acts is what makes them so reprehensible. In which case, I can only suggest that these people stop eating, sleeping, or going to the bathroom.
Modern marriage is the joining of two individuals who enter into a partnership not because they need each other, but because they want each other. Today women can work and men can stay home and raise children. As we have dispensed with strict gender roles, so have we negated the need to only consider marriage as occurring between a man and a woman. We live in a nation which was one of the earliest to separate church and state. So why should the religious convictions of some be allowed to affect the civil liberties of others?
I'd like to conclude with a link to Glaukopis's satire and this thought: we are created in God's image, so why not revere our bodies in all the ways possible?
Gay Marriage amendment Fails in Senate
Washington Sketch
The first is an article, the second an editorial. Both concern the re-introduced marriage amendment. All I can say is, I am ashamed for my country. Let us ignore, for the moment, whether I support gay marriage or not. This matter is not for the federal constitution. Marriage is a matter of interpersonal relationships, not a crucial government issue. If the marriage amendment, which would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, became a part of the Constitution, it would be the only constitutional article of its kind. To incorporate marriage into the Constitution is to say that the very structure of our government and our nation is dependent upon a particular type of personal relationship among our citizens. How incredibly weak and ridiculous does that make the USA sound?
Now to what the amendment is about. To define marriage as the union between one man and one woman is to leave democracy behind and turn the USA into a theocracy. There is no secular reason to keep homosexuals from marrying. After all, partnership is partnership. Two people of the same sex can have a joint household, combine their assets, and care for each other in times of need just as two people of opposite sexes can. There is no anthropological reason to assume the necessity of the nuclear family with one father, one mother, and 2.3 children. In fact, societies where there is traditionally strong ties between extended kin generally have lower incidences of major depression.
The religious reason lies in the belief of orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims that sexuality cannot be separated from procreation without being sinful. Hence the protester quoted in the editorial who cites the danger of homosexuality encouraging masturbation. After all, one cannot create children through masturbation, so masturbation is sinful. Edited to add, in response to a note: I know that Orthodox Jews do not consider sexuality per se sinful, and that enjoyment of the sex act is considered necessary for both partners and that physical and spiritual fulfillment in this case are intertwined. However, my understanding is that Orthodox Jews understand the story of Onan and Tamar as an injunction against masturbation, and of course Leviticus forbids a person to lay with a man as with a woman, which is hard to interpret in any way that doesn't relate to homosexuality. So sex only becomes legitimate in a procreative model, i.e., man and woman. However, I do not know what the opinion of Orthodox Jews on birth control is, so I am more than willing to be educated on this, or corrected if my understanding about the Orthodox Jews and the Onanian dogma is wrong.
This belief is incredibly archaic. We live in an era where contraceptive is safer and more reliable than ever, AIDS is sweeping through Africa and India, and the globe is becoming grossly over-populated. Besides which, how is this anyone's business? How did these "activists" ever get the idea that what goes on in other people's private lives is their concern? If I choose to marry another woman, how does that affect anyone else? It certainly doesn't demean heterosexual marriages. Denmark, the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, has a divorce rate of 2.81 per 1000 people, as opposed to the prejudiced USA's number of 4.95 per 1000 people.
The truth is that numerous kinds of sex acts, including masturbation and homosexuality, are known in nature. In fact, anyone who has ever had a dog hump his leg knows this. So there goes the belief that homosexuality is unnatural, practiced only by degenerates. Of course, there are some who would argue that the bestial nature of these acts is what makes them so reprehensible. In which case, I can only suggest that these people stop eating, sleeping, or going to the bathroom.
Modern marriage is the joining of two individuals who enter into a partnership not because they need each other, but because they want each other. Today women can work and men can stay home and raise children. As we have dispensed with strict gender roles, so have we negated the need to only consider marriage as occurring between a man and a woman. We live in a nation which was one of the earliest to separate church and state. So why should the religious convictions of some be allowed to affect the civil liberties of others?
I'd like to conclude with a link to Glaukopis's satire and this thought: we are created in God's image, so why not revere our bodies in all the ways possible?
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Is there a dead angel in the garage?
This past Sunday, May 14, "The Simpsons" aired an episode called "The Monkey Suit." Flanders and Rev. Lovejoy go to war on teaching evolution in public school science classes. Lisa expresses her outrage to her mother and Marge replies, "well, I think both views should be respected and get equal time." And Lisa says "You have to chose between science and faith," or something like that. This characterization, which is not unique to the writers of Simpsons' episodes, is patently false. The fact is that science and religion are dealing with two completely different types of truth, and to say that one can disprove the other is nonsense.
Science is the effort to understand natural laws through evidence that can be gathered by sensory perception. In other words, things that can be understood by seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, and/or touching them (in some cases with the help of tools). Evolution is science as not only can the fossil record be experienced this way, but evolution can actually be observed as it is happening in certain bacteria. Scientific fact must stand up to the same test of proof repeatedly, and it can be manipulated in manner x with predictable result y. This is why evolution is scientific fact, and should be taught in science classrooms.
Religion and mythology are means of understanding the world for which no scientific evidence can be gathered. This is to address the unanswerable question. Science tells us how, religion seeks to tell us why. Evolution can explain how we emerged from a single living cell into the vast range of lifeforms we have. But Genesis has a story for why we live, why have souls, why there is suffering in the world. Of course there are other mythologies than the Biblical one with different stories, but their purpose is the same: to gain an understanding of what it means to be human.
I am not suggesting that you have to accept the religious explanations you have been given. Where science can only have one reigning truth at any given time ("facts" may eventually be disproven with better evidence), religion can have infinite truths, as each individual tries to understand their place in the world. And your religious truth may be that there is no God, we are here as a result of cataclysmic coincidence, and all life is random. But, science can't prove that to be true anymore than it can prove it to be untrue.
So, I suppose I agree with Judge Snider's ruling in "Lisa the Skeptic": "As for the case of science vs. religion, I am issuing a restraining order. [Religion] must stay 500 feet away from [science] at all times." I switched the two, as I feel that many of the ongoing battles have more to do with religion trying to insinuate itself into the science classrom than science trying to insinuate itself into houses of worship. Everyone is free to hold the beliefs that are dearest to them, but you have to accept that creationism is not science, and that intelligent design is not good science. And that's okay. Because the whole point of faith is that you don't need hard evidence. It's true to your spiritual being, and that's good enough.
Science is the effort to understand natural laws through evidence that can be gathered by sensory perception. In other words, things that can be understood by seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, and/or touching them (in some cases with the help of tools). Evolution is science as not only can the fossil record be experienced this way, but evolution can actually be observed as it is happening in certain bacteria. Scientific fact must stand up to the same test of proof repeatedly, and it can be manipulated in manner x with predictable result y. This is why evolution is scientific fact, and should be taught in science classrooms.
Religion and mythology are means of understanding the world for which no scientific evidence can be gathered. This is to address the unanswerable question. Science tells us how, religion seeks to tell us why. Evolution can explain how we emerged from a single living cell into the vast range of lifeforms we have. But Genesis has a story for why we live, why have souls, why there is suffering in the world. Of course there are other mythologies than the Biblical one with different stories, but their purpose is the same: to gain an understanding of what it means to be human.
I am not suggesting that you have to accept the religious explanations you have been given. Where science can only have one reigning truth at any given time ("facts" may eventually be disproven with better evidence), religion can have infinite truths, as each individual tries to understand their place in the world. And your religious truth may be that there is no God, we are here as a result of cataclysmic coincidence, and all life is random. But, science can't prove that to be true anymore than it can prove it to be untrue.
So, I suppose I agree with Judge Snider's ruling in "Lisa the Skeptic": "As for the case of science vs. religion, I am issuing a restraining order. [Religion] must stay 500 feet away from [science] at all times." I switched the two, as I feel that many of the ongoing battles have more to do with religion trying to insinuate itself into the science classrom than science trying to insinuate itself into houses of worship. Everyone is free to hold the beliefs that are dearest to them, but you have to accept that creationism is not science, and that intelligent design is not good science. And that's okay. Because the whole point of faith is that you don't need hard evidence. It's true to your spiritual being, and that's good enough.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Contrition (an apology for the last post)
I use the term apology in both its sense as an expression of regret and as a justification. Though I do not regret the sentiment that I was trying to express in the last post, I do regret that I expressed it somewhat poorly and thereby caused offense.
First, I would like to say that I was not trying to indict the extracurricular group that I mentioned. I was simply trying to use the scenarios I mentioned as an illustration of the larger sense of disconnect between majority and minority groups. I do not hold the group nor its leadership in any disregard, and feel that what happened was simply symptomatic of larger cultural issues and a natural bias that is very easy for all of us to develop and very hard to avoid. It is always easier to be aware of ourselves than others, but I think it is even easier when one is part of the dominant group. An American Protestant has a hard time being cognizant of what it feels like to be an American Jew, Muslim, Mormon, etc. As a white person, I have a hard time being fully cognizant of what it means to be Asian, Hispanic, African, etc, and am therefore capable of being inadvertently insensitive, as much as I hate to do so.
Another point that I intended, but ultimately failed, it would seem, to make, was that there is a certain uncertainty, at least I feel, to what degree a minority should assert their presence. I knew that some sort of leavened product would be served, yet I failed to contact the director to try to make special arrangements. Well, the practical thing to have done would have been to packed some sort of sack-lunch, but I never claimed to be immune to idiocy/sloth. At any rate, the reason why I didn't wish to make a special request was because it seemed presumptuous to ask someone to go out of her way for my special needs. Which may seem contradictory, since it never even occurred to me that the Jewish High Holidays wouldn't be taken into account (I'm spoiled, I grew up in an area densely populated with my fellow Hebrews). Which is why I wasn't actually upset about the bread, and I do regret that is the way I came across in the last post, merely reflective.
So hopefully that clarified things. I truly wasn't trying to be combative. I generally don't wish to take that particular tack, as I feel conversation goes nowhere when people are seeking to antagonize each other. Readers, please feel free to let me know when you feel I have been insensitive, though I ask that you try to keep to the same guidelines I am trying to hold myself to, which is to make discourse as courteous as possible.
First, I would like to say that I was not trying to indict the extracurricular group that I mentioned. I was simply trying to use the scenarios I mentioned as an illustration of the larger sense of disconnect between majority and minority groups. I do not hold the group nor its leadership in any disregard, and feel that what happened was simply symptomatic of larger cultural issues and a natural bias that is very easy for all of us to develop and very hard to avoid. It is always easier to be aware of ourselves than others, but I think it is even easier when one is part of the dominant group. An American Protestant has a hard time being cognizant of what it feels like to be an American Jew, Muslim, Mormon, etc. As a white person, I have a hard time being fully cognizant of what it means to be Asian, Hispanic, African, etc, and am therefore capable of being inadvertently insensitive, as much as I hate to do so.
Another point that I intended, but ultimately failed, it would seem, to make, was that there is a certain uncertainty, at least I feel, to what degree a minority should assert their presence. I knew that some sort of leavened product would be served, yet I failed to contact the director to try to make special arrangements. Well, the practical thing to have done would have been to packed some sort of sack-lunch, but I never claimed to be immune to idiocy/sloth. At any rate, the reason why I didn't wish to make a special request was because it seemed presumptuous to ask someone to go out of her way for my special needs. Which may seem contradictory, since it never even occurred to me that the Jewish High Holidays wouldn't be taken into account (I'm spoiled, I grew up in an area densely populated with my fellow Hebrews). Which is why I wasn't actually upset about the bread, and I do regret that is the way I came across in the last post, merely reflective.
So hopefully that clarified things. I truly wasn't trying to be combative. I generally don't wish to take that particular tack, as I feel conversation goes nowhere when people are seeking to antagonize each other. Readers, please feel free to let me know when you feel I have been insensitive, though I ask that you try to keep to the same guidelines I am trying to hold myself to, which is to make discourse as courteous as possible.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Is Greenday Right?
From sunset on Wednesday, 4/12 to sunset on Thursday 4/20 it was Passover. So any even slightly observant Jew was giving up bread for those eight days. At a meeting on Tuesday, 4/18, we had sandwich fixin's. As a vegetarian, I have long since gotten used to the idea that meat will be served at things like this, and as I've never kept kosher I certainly wouldn't complain about the frequency of things like meat as pizza toppings (kashrut forbids eating milk and meat), though I have been annoyed when all the plain or veggie is gone and all that's left is pepperoni, but that's only happened once that I can remember. But it was frustrating to have been on a bread fast and then have been served sandwiches. There were veggies and fruit, so I didn't go hungry, but I was tempted, and I noticed the other Jew who was there eating a ham sandwich, of all things. So what's my point?
Just because you aren't overtly/consciously prejudiced, you may still be making life harder for a minority. That wasn't the only time this particular organization has done this. The past Rosh Hashannah was on a Tuesday, and when the club meeting had low attendance, a chastising email was sent out, with no awareness that there was a religious holiday. The next week, the training meeting was switched from its original date to Yom Kippur. Meanwhile, Valentine's Day, which is not religiously significant to anyone I know, and a giant pain in the ass to many single people, was carefully scheduled around. Though the person who provided us with sandwiches certainly wasn't on some sort of antisemitic rampage, the fact is that as a minority, my needs weren't known; it wasn't antisemitism, but it was still a hostile environment. And this at a school that is ~20% Jewish and has one of the best attended Hillels and Jewish Studies programs in the country (I think. Don't cite me on this.)
I don't know what to suggest to correct this problem. I freely admit that I'm not very good at keeping track of the start of Ramadan, or when Tet is. So maybe the answer is just that we all need to make an effort ot be more culturally aware. But if you live in a community with only one Vietnamese person or a handful of Muslim people. . . you might not be at a level of awareness to even know you need to be more aware. And then there's the question of how much minorities need to be willing to assimilate. I've always been of the mind that immigrants should make an effort to learn English, because that's the language this country speaks. But how do I know that I've drawn an appropriate line? Arguably, my refusal to convert to Christianity means that I have made my interactions with fellow citizens more complicated. I know that all the Jews who don't work on the Sabbath definitely put stumbling blocks in the way of scheduling things (though it tends to affect them more than it affects others). I see a big difference between the two, but maybe I have just as much a responsibility to learn Spanish, as Spanish-speakers are an ever-growing demographic, as the recent waves of immigrants from South America have to learn English, or at the very least to make sure that my children learn it (which I'm sort of dedicated to anyway). I'm not opposed to it, but I chose French in middle and high school, and Hebrew and Gaelic are higher on the list of languages-I-want-to-learn; maybe I shouldn't have the option of not learning Spanish ASAP. Or maybe I shouldn't question the fact that sometimes I have to suck it up that people will serve me bread during Passover.
So maybe it isn't the responsibility of the ethnic majority/plurality to adapt to the needs of the minority. But ask yourself, if someone planned a meeting or gave you homework on Christmas, how would you feel about that?
Hmm, I seem to be writing ever-longer sentences in this blog. I promise I'll avoid that in the future.
And if you're wondering about the title, I'm referring to Greendays "I Wanna Be the Minority."
Just because you aren't overtly/consciously prejudiced, you may still be making life harder for a minority. That wasn't the only time this particular organization has done this. The past Rosh Hashannah was on a Tuesday, and when the club meeting had low attendance, a chastising email was sent out, with no awareness that there was a religious holiday. The next week, the training meeting was switched from its original date to Yom Kippur. Meanwhile, Valentine's Day, which is not religiously significant to anyone I know, and a giant pain in the ass to many single people, was carefully scheduled around. Though the person who provided us with sandwiches certainly wasn't on some sort of antisemitic rampage, the fact is that as a minority, my needs weren't known; it wasn't antisemitism, but it was still a hostile environment. And this at a school that is ~20% Jewish and has one of the best attended Hillels and Jewish Studies programs in the country (I think. Don't cite me on this.)
I don't know what to suggest to correct this problem. I freely admit that I'm not very good at keeping track of the start of Ramadan, or when Tet is. So maybe the answer is just that we all need to make an effort ot be more culturally aware. But if you live in a community with only one Vietnamese person or a handful of Muslim people. . . you might not be at a level of awareness to even know you need to be more aware. And then there's the question of how much minorities need to be willing to assimilate. I've always been of the mind that immigrants should make an effort to learn English, because that's the language this country speaks. But how do I know that I've drawn an appropriate line? Arguably, my refusal to convert to Christianity means that I have made my interactions with fellow citizens more complicated. I know that all the Jews who don't work on the Sabbath definitely put stumbling blocks in the way of scheduling things (though it tends to affect them more than it affects others). I see a big difference between the two, but maybe I have just as much a responsibility to learn Spanish, as Spanish-speakers are an ever-growing demographic, as the recent waves of immigrants from South America have to learn English, or at the very least to make sure that my children learn it (which I'm sort of dedicated to anyway). I'm not opposed to it, but I chose French in middle and high school, and Hebrew and Gaelic are higher on the list of languages-I-want-to-learn; maybe I shouldn't have the option of not learning Spanish ASAP. Or maybe I shouldn't question the fact that sometimes I have to suck it up that people will serve me bread during Passover.
So maybe it isn't the responsibility of the ethnic majority/plurality to adapt to the needs of the minority. But ask yourself, if someone planned a meeting or gave you homework on Christmas, how would you feel about that?
Hmm, I seem to be writing ever-longer sentences in this blog. I promise I'll avoid that in the future.
And if you're wondering about the title, I'm referring to Greendays "I Wanna Be the Minority."
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Humanization
So as I mentioned in the previous post, I was at a round table for English professors and students yesterday and we got to talking about "why are we here?" with here being the English department. And I made my typical little speech and even got a "wow" from Professor Mack, our resident Shakespeare authority. I wish I had thought to introduce myself when I said it. Oh well. At any rate, here is my (extended) rant on why the world needs arts and humanities majors:
I don't think that as English majors, or any other ARHU majors, that we need to feel guilty about our choice of study. We need the humanities for exactly that reason: they humanize us. If we only pursue those fields which seem to us to have obvious utilitarian goals, such computer science, engineering, or even medicine, we lose our souls, our spirits, that which makes us special among animals. If we think only in terms of how the search for knowledge will help us to live a more physically comfortable life, then we stop being human. I don't say this out of derision of animals, since anyone who knows me knows that I love them better than most people, but they are not human. They do not have our capacity to make change, and therefore they do not have our need for self-reflection.
The truth is that practical science has betrayed us. The first major technological revolution was agriculture, and soon after civilization developed nutritional and social problems that never existed for us as hunter-gatherers. We became a drain on our own resources and started to look for ways to take other communities' resources. In a more modern sense, we are still being betrayed. Our means of getting more food faster has made many of obese, leading to issues ranging from low-energy to deadly diabetes. Not to mention that many of our processed foods are carcinogenic.
Beyond that, our planet is quite literally melting. And our greater technologies have more than anything given us greater power to bring death to our fellow man. And the people who are only concerned with the most efficient, the cheapest, the fastest, are the ones who are leading the way to destruction.
And even if people don't die, their cultures often do. We are losing the beauty of diversity to the diseases of globalism, capitalism, homegenization and the sirens of celebrity, consumerism, technology.
I do not mean to say that we should cease to study chemisty, economics, biotechnology. But rather that we need the humanities as check, a balance. It seems that the increase of our tools has led to a decrease in our morals. And it is up to the artists, the humanists to cast the light on our excesses and our cruelties and to force us to look at what we, as humans, have become.
Today, quite by accident, I stumbled upon a quotation that beautifully expresses this: "Scientific progress makes moral progress a necessity; for if man's power is increased, the checks that restrain him from abusing it must be strengthened,"
Madame de Stael, "The Influence of Literature upon Society"
So, now you know why I don't feel the least bit self-indulgent being an English and History major.
I don't think that as English majors, or any other ARHU majors, that we need to feel guilty about our choice of study. We need the humanities for exactly that reason: they humanize us. If we only pursue those fields which seem to us to have obvious utilitarian goals, such computer science, engineering, or even medicine, we lose our souls, our spirits, that which makes us special among animals. If we think only in terms of how the search for knowledge will help us to live a more physically comfortable life, then we stop being human. I don't say this out of derision of animals, since anyone who knows me knows that I love them better than most people, but they are not human. They do not have our capacity to make change, and therefore they do not have our need for self-reflection.
The truth is that practical science has betrayed us. The first major technological revolution was agriculture, and soon after civilization developed nutritional and social problems that never existed for us as hunter-gatherers. We became a drain on our own resources and started to look for ways to take other communities' resources. In a more modern sense, we are still being betrayed. Our means of getting more food faster has made many of obese, leading to issues ranging from low-energy to deadly diabetes. Not to mention that many of our processed foods are carcinogenic.
Beyond that, our planet is quite literally melting. And our greater technologies have more than anything given us greater power to bring death to our fellow man. And the people who are only concerned with the most efficient, the cheapest, the fastest, are the ones who are leading the way to destruction.
And even if people don't die, their cultures often do. We are losing the beauty of diversity to the diseases of globalism, capitalism, homegenization and the sirens of celebrity, consumerism, technology.
I do not mean to say that we should cease to study chemisty, economics, biotechnology. But rather that we need the humanities as check, a balance. It seems that the increase of our tools has led to a decrease in our morals. And it is up to the artists, the humanists to cast the light on our excesses and our cruelties and to force us to look at what we, as humans, have become.
Today, quite by accident, I stumbled upon a quotation that beautifully expresses this: "Scientific progress makes moral progress a necessity; for if man's power is increased, the checks that restrain him from abusing it must be strengthened,"
Madame de Stael, "The Influence of Literature upon Society"
So, now you know why I don't feel the least bit self-indulgent being an English and History major.
Friday, April 07, 2006
An introduction. . .
Today I was at round-table discussion called "Life After Life" which was about why we become English majors. And the once again I found myself not able to talk as much as I would like about the various issues that come up in day-to-day life. People just don't appreciate that listening to my opinions is time well-spent. Or not. But now I can rant, rave, and babble to my heart's content and direct all my friends to my musings, thereby only spewing them the one time.
As for the name. . . Aine is Irish and Bina is Hebrew, and both translate roughly as wisdom, intelligence, wit, etc. I'm honored to be Jewish, but I think I was Celtic in a past life. Or if you can't take that seriously, I am compelled by Celtic culture and a lot of people seem to think I look Irish.
The Sacred Apple Orchard has to do with mystic. . . stuff. I used it more because l like the sound of it than that I have any true expertise about what it signifies. Look it up. Don't make fun of me if you find out it's stupid.
As for the name. . . Aine is Irish and Bina is Hebrew, and both translate roughly as wisdom, intelligence, wit, etc. I'm honored to be Jewish, but I think I was Celtic in a past life. Or if you can't take that seriously, I am compelled by Celtic culture and a lot of people seem to think I look Irish.
The Sacred Apple Orchard has to do with mystic. . . stuff. I used it more because l like the sound of it than that I have any true expertise about what it signifies. Look it up. Don't make fun of me if you find out it's stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
