The Star-Telegram reports that two Texas slaughterhouses were closed in the last year while a third one continues to hang on - though just barely. The catch? These slaughterhouses were killing horses for human consumption.
While the practice might sound almost to par with consuming dog or cat (the punchline of many south Asian jokes), I feel the entire argument rather serves to show how our American legal system is based solely upon cultural feelings and lobbying powers rather than logically founded arguments and conclusions.
Though the thought of consuming horse meat is not necessarily something that appeals to me (though I would happily try it), I feel it is purely illogical to legally assert that one species of an animal is somehow less worthy of slaughter than another. Rephrased: that it is somehow 'better' to kill a cow, chicken, goat, sheep, etc., while sparing a horse. Veal for example is a very popular dish in the United States and I think there are few not familiar with the process of 'obtaining' it from the small calf. Yet while frowned upon by some, the practice remains entirely legal.
Still, we have clearly drawn the line somewhere over the years namely with dogs and cats; both which remain illegal for consumption in most states (Hawaii is one particular exception). And why? For no other reason than cultural sensitivity. This is where you should feel the need to recall that "what's right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right."
By giving certain animals a 'place in society' while legislating that others are expendable, we are (a) creating an indiscernible opinion of whether or not a species should be eligible for consumption, (b) choosing to be unsympathetic to the cultures of other societies, and (c) proving once more that our legal system is not predicated upon intellect, logic, and fair practice, but rather dictated by feelings.
To argue that a horse (or other animal for that matter) should not be slaughtered because it is a majestic animal, or that it has a place in the family, etc. is about as sound as arguing one religion is better than another. It is not that the argument can't be made with pros and cons, but rather that it is impossible to draw a conclusion given that the antecedent is merely an opinion. An unregulated market would provide local areas the ability choose what foods were sold and consumed based upon simple supply and demand economics.
...or perhaps it would be better to outlaw lobster in Brooklyn?
So to conclude, while horse meat might not be the most popular consumable dish in our country, it seems that it would be better to legislate within logical legislative boundaries rather than continually appeal to the cries from lobbyists. Though I do not [personally] want to see an increase in the number of horses slaughtered, it seems a poor way to legislate all the while providing the general public the freedom to be ignorant of their own hypocrisy.
7 comments:
A Horse is a Cow, Of Course, Of Course
Recently the U.S. House of Representatives gave a big “Neeeeeh” to spending money on horse-slaughterhouse inspections. In the article No More Horse Meat, the fact that two Texas slaughterhouses had been recently shut down for killing horses for meat brought forth much analysis of the hypocrisy of why we eat certain cuts of meat and not others. One conclusion came to a reason – certain cultures dictate feelings to individual animals.
However I feel that maybe the cultures do have some backbone to the reasoning.
A big picture that may pop into your head is that of George Orwell’s Animal Farm (not looking at the historical significance) or the little pig Wilbur in Charlotte’s Web. These barnyard animals that are just walking meat in reality were given personalities in the novels. When the creatures came to the knowing that they might be butchered or sold off, there was an uprising to save them. When the animals died – many readers/watchers felt sympathetic or may have “teared-up” (I cried). We all wanted them to live a happy life as long as possible. However, like mentioned earlier – these personalities aren’t prevalent in reality. Cows just moo, and chickens just cluck. However, dogs – now dogs do have a prevalent personality. They lick, whimper, cuddle, play, and provide companionship to many. Others may view horses to have quite a soft, beautiful personality. So personality hits a nerve in our brains to cherish, not eat.
A further reason we may eat certain animals and not others may stem from the original usefulness otherwise. The entire reason horses were brought to America was for transportation. I can’t imagine a settler exploring the country on a cow. (That would be a long “moooove”.) Many people that live on a farm know that meat cows are much different than milk cows. We do not butcher milk cows as they serve for a practical use being alive: milk. Hens are kept alive while able to lay eggs.
Also, what we eat typically tastes good to most. Supposedly, horse meat is very strained and not one slab but very fibril - and to many, not very tasty. Milk cows also typically do not taste as good as meat cows. Dog is quite revolting to some.
Some feel that we should not eat any meat at all, and some want it to rip apart every living creature and take a big bite. So, there has to be a line drawn to compromise. This is probably the main reason the House rejected spending money on horse-slaughterhouses: they are answering to many of their constituents whom desire the line to be drawn after cows. Think about it, without a boundary, we (humans) might be edible to…!
Heidi, with all due respect, I'm not sure that you actually read the commentary that I left on this article.
While your response was, 'cute', my entire argument was weighted on the notion that we should NOT legislate based upon such 'feelings', but rather upon logic.
I would be happy receiving a retort suggesting why you feel such an opinion is incorrect, but it seems that you more or less just restated points that I had already made.
Based upon the comments you did make however, I will make a few points in return.
...why we eat certain cuts of meat and not others. One conclusion came to a reason – certain cultures dictate feelings to individual animals.
Yes this is somewhat true, certain cultures do have certain feelings on individual animals. However, the two problems I had already analyzed in that are (a) feelings alone should NOT dictate law and (b) how does this account for the other cultures feelings?
I had written in my article about banning lobsters in Brooklyn. The statement was in reference to the LARGE LARGE Jewish population of eastern New York City, most all of whom do NOT consume shellfish or pig for that matter. Why don't we draw the line for them and ban the sale of pork? ...or lobster?
It seems absurd does it not? ...to ban the sale of pork of all things! And yet, to these hundreds of thousands living in a concentrated area, the ban would most likely be welcomed.
So you might say that is only a matter of opinion, someone's different faith, and you would be 100% correct - hence, my philosophy on why we should NOT legislate based upon an otherwise illogical basis.
As for using Animal Farm as a way to convey an animal's personality, well, I couldn't help but find it slightly ironic given I am arguing against political lobbyists and other forms of (I dare say) corrupted forms of power.
A further reason we may eat certain animals and not others may stem from the original usefulness otherwise.
I have to disagree with this point, fully. While I can appreciate that horses once served more commonly as transportation, this is just NOT the case any longer. I should also point out, though not entirely on topic, that horses were native to North America. In fact, feral horse, otherwise known as Mustangs, still roam parts of the continent.
Also, what we eat typically tastes good to most. Supposedly, horse meat is very strained and not one slab but very fibril - and to many, not very tasty. Milk cows also typically do not taste as good as meat cows. Dog is quite revolting to some.
Again, none of which has any basis for legislation. ...and from what I have read, horse meat is actually very tasty - though this has no bearing on my point whatsoever.
I understand you being defensive of your stand, however if you need to do so much explaining in a combative manner - maybe you would feel more confidant being more thorough in your initial article. I found your article very delightful, and understood completely - oh yeah, yes I did read it, three times in fact. (Hence why I picked it to comment on) I did comment on your article, maybe not on what you consider the overall "message", but from what I grasped you were mentioning - why we eat certain cuts of meat and not others. I gave just further reasoning. "I feel it is purely illogical to legally assert that one species of an animal is somehow less worthy of slaughter than another. Rephrased: that it is somehow 'better' to kill a cow, chicken, goat, sheep, etc., while sparing a horse". This was a major motif throughout, so I wanted to comment.
And finding my article "cute", well I will take that as a compliment - as it obviously made an impact on you aside from boring...or hard to get through. Blogs are entitled to being more lax. Haven't you watched the KLRU episodes on blogging?
And if you want to take "cute" as an insult-so be it. I hate to say though, commenting on "the punchline of many south Asian jokes" is a little sketchy itself.
I did not pick George Orwell's Animal Farm to look at the political relation to the story - hence "not looking at the historical significance" but more as a cartoon.
The reasoning behind practicality - maybe I should have been more specific as well - is a psychological factor. Through the habituation of neuronal messaging of the practicality of certain species, people learned to value certain animals better alive than dead. This strong value was spread (hence the word "stems")throughout generations and most likely even learned individually today.
If you seem bothered that I didn't draw a conclusion on that lobbying is formed from cultural feeling rather than logic, it is because the majority of your article is not about that issue, but rather about what cultures eat what. (I know, there is a "LARGE LARGE" population of Jewish people in the east.) (I hate to say again though, most Jewish actually have begun eating shellfish and pork in what is called "Contemporary Judaism").
Heidi,
I apologize for you taking my response to be so combative. Having re-read it, I can see your point. As for calling it 'cute', it was a legitimate comment specifically in regards to your animal imagery and use of 'mooooove'. I did laugh, but I suppose that the topic surrounding it made the comment sound more sarcastic than anything. Again, my apologies.
Though the topic is specifically about horse meat, the concept behind this is the same for most of the largest issues that this country faces. Pick your topic of abortion, equal rights for varying sexualities, and even general discrimination.
There isn't a person involved with government that doesn't have SOME sort of feeling one way or another on each issue - but creating legislation on those feelings is contrary to how the government is supposed to work in the first place.
We take such great pleasure (in this country) at pointing out the flaws in the mid-east right now because they base their government(s) on Islamic faith. And yet, day in and day out, we do exactly the same thing - all the way down to much less important issues like this one.
I believe that few people in this country are capable of grasping the concept of 'fair'. If one doesn't believe eating horse is right, don't do it, but don't have the attitude that because someone else will consume it that it is now wrong - especially if you just had some choice cut of meat for lunch. (you being the general you)
I believe eating veal is wrong and thus choose not to. If enough people have that attitude, veal won't be sold here for simple economic reasons.
...people learned to value certain animals better alive than dead.
That is exactly what I meant above. People have also have learned to value certain religions, and those religions practice different beliefs.
While my point might be almost Utopian, and otherwise completely unattainable, I merely believe it's worth noting that laws should be based upon reason rather than opinion.
So going back to square one, if one can find a REASON that horses should be spared over cows, goats, chickens, rabbits, pigs, etc., I would love to hear that line of reasoning. If it's simply that to the tune of 'I like horses more', then it seems unfair to the aforementioned animals that they are not as popular with you.
I think you bring up a very interesting point about “racism in our food choices.” It is true that most Americans feel a certain aversion to the idea of eating horses, dogs and cats, probably because we’ve always been taught that these are farm animals or pets, whereas chickens, pigs and cows have traditionally been considered food and food-related animals. (At least for me) Why don’t we eat these animals, indeed?
Perhaps the biggest issue I would think of off the top of my head would be the fact that the consumer assumes that he or she is getting 100 percent beef or pork in the sausage purchased. However, inferior meat has been substituted. Moreover, this meat is not one that has regulations regarding its cleanliness, etc. The main problem here is less a matter of “why can’t we eat horses?” and more a problem of “How can we trust Texas standards if the quality control can let non-approved meat get through?”
Probably the main reason we don’t eat horses, dogs and cats is, as mentioned, the fact that they are typically viewed as pets. However, go beyond that and we come to another issue – are they actually good to eat?
Thoughtful post that generated good banter.
Post a Comment