Dog, Horse... It's Good Food for Us
posted by: Angel Flinn 125 days ago
In February of this year, a resident of Auckland, New Zealand killed his family dog and barbecued the body. Concerned neighbors informed the SPCA, who arrived at the man's home to find the dog's body roasting over an outdoor fire.
The SPCA investigated the incident, but recently came to the conclusion that no crime was committed, because the murder was carried out 'humanely'. According to the man's story, the dog was killed swiftly and painlessly. In what proves to be a classic example of the absurdity of animal welfare laws, New Zealand considers this perfectly legal.
Garth Halliday, of the Auckland SPCA, told reporters that the family had become 'tired of the dog', and decided he was becoming a pest, especially as he was riddled with fleas. Rather than treating the fleas and finding an appropriate home for the dog, they decided to simply kill and eat him, a practice that is commonly accepted in their native Tonga.
According to the man's wife, "Dog, horse, we eat it in Tonga. It's good food for us."
As someone whose life has been enriched greatly by my experience with dogs, it's hard not to see this as an exceptionally gruesome act, and as somehow different to the barbaric and unnecessary slaughter that occurs on a massive scale every day so that people everywhere can enjoy the taste of flesh. Dogs, after all, are animals who are treated as family members in many loving homes throughout the world, and it's hard not to fall victim to the speciesism that teaches us to see dogs as somehow entitled to a greater degree of protection than animals used by agriculture.
If Paea Taufu worked in an animal factory, he could be killing animals all day long, and not only would it not be considered controversial, he would be paid for it, and regular people would buy the animals' flesh to eat it themselves. The difference? Dog = Pet. Lamb = Food. But this incident offers us a remarkable opportunity to examine such cultural prejudices and see them as they really are: meaningless justifications for cruelty toward some that we would not tolerate toward others.
To the vast majority of humanity, animals are judged edible and inedible according to irrelevant characteristics. Pigs, just like dogs, are intelligent, social, affectionate creatures, who love a tummy rub and will greet their people with wagging tails. Cows sorrowfully mourn the loss of their young, and can bellow for days after their babies are taken from them to be killed and eaten as veal. Turkeys can experience deep emotional connections with people, and chickens can be psychologically traumatized for life after being released from an egg production facility. All of these animals are shut out of our general circle of compassion or empathy, for no reason other than that they fulfill our desire for certain 'foods'.
Although I admit that my own cultural prejudices kick in when I hear about a dog being killed to be turned into meat for a family lunch, I can't help but feel that there is a certain hypocrisy being displayed by the general reaction to this incident, as though there is some sort of significant difference between the value of the life of a dog and the value of the life of a pig, a cow, or a chicken, animals who are killed collectively by the billions every year. In the US alone, we kill 317 land animals every second of every day. That does not even include the billions of aquatic animals killed every year, and it equals almost 20,000 every minute, and over 1,000,000 every hour.
I am not suggesting that people should not be horrified by this story, nor am I suggesting that there is anything defensible about killing a family member, or any animal, for any reason, in any way. What I am suggesting is that those who are horrified by this story ought to think carefully about why it is horrifying, and what our reaction to this tells us about animal use in general. The only reason we are not equally moved by the brutal murder of other animals is simply because we choose to ignore it. The reason we ignore it is because we benefit from it, and are therefore complicit in it.
We disregard our ethical responsibility toward these animals because it is convenient, but in so doing, we unwittingly stunt our ethical development, and thereby inhibit the social progression of humanity. The evolution of civilization is a continuous path toward learning the difference between right and wrong, between justice and injustice. To cling so stubbornly to the practice of enslaving animals for food and other pleasures, is to deny the need for the evolution of society, as though our widespread problems with violence and brutality do not have some deeper cause that needs to be addressed.
The SPCA investigated the incident, but recently came to the conclusion that no crime was committed, because the murder was carried out 'humanely'. According to the man's story, the dog was killed swiftly and painlessly. In what proves to be a classic example of the absurdity of animal welfare laws, New Zealand considers this perfectly legal.
Garth Halliday, of the Auckland SPCA, told reporters that the family had become 'tired of the dog', and decided he was becoming a pest, especially as he was riddled with fleas. Rather than treating the fleas and finding an appropriate home for the dog, they decided to simply kill and eat him, a practice that is commonly accepted in their native Tonga.
According to the man's wife, "Dog, horse, we eat it in Tonga. It's good food for us."
As someone whose life has been enriched greatly by my experience with dogs, it's hard not to see this as an exceptionally gruesome act, and as somehow different to the barbaric and unnecessary slaughter that occurs on a massive scale every day so that people everywhere can enjoy the taste of flesh. Dogs, after all, are animals who are treated as family members in many loving homes throughout the world, and it's hard not to fall victim to the speciesism that teaches us to see dogs as somehow entitled to a greater degree of protection than animals used by agriculture.
If Paea Taufu worked in an animal factory, he could be killing animals all day long, and not only would it not be considered controversial, he would be paid for it, and regular people would buy the animals' flesh to eat it themselves. The difference? Dog = Pet. Lamb = Food. But this incident offers us a remarkable opportunity to examine such cultural prejudices and see them as they really are: meaningless justifications for cruelty toward some that we would not tolerate toward others.
To the vast majority of humanity, animals are judged edible and inedible according to irrelevant characteristics. Pigs, just like dogs, are intelligent, social, affectionate creatures, who love a tummy rub and will greet their people with wagging tails. Cows sorrowfully mourn the loss of their young, and can bellow for days after their babies are taken from them to be killed and eaten as veal. Turkeys can experience deep emotional connections with people, and chickens can be psychologically traumatized for life after being released from an egg production facility. All of these animals are shut out of our general circle of compassion or empathy, for no reason other than that they fulfill our desire for certain 'foods'.
Although I admit that my own cultural prejudices kick in when I hear about a dog being killed to be turned into meat for a family lunch, I can't help but feel that there is a certain hypocrisy being displayed by the general reaction to this incident, as though there is some sort of significant difference between the value of the life of a dog and the value of the life of a pig, a cow, or a chicken, animals who are killed collectively by the billions every year. In the US alone, we kill 317 land animals every second of every day. That does not even include the billions of aquatic animals killed every year, and it equals almost 20,000 every minute, and over 1,000,000 every hour.
I am not suggesting that people should not be horrified by this story, nor am I suggesting that there is anything defensible about killing a family member, or any animal, for any reason, in any way. What I am suggesting is that those who are horrified by this story ought to think carefully about why it is horrifying, and what our reaction to this tells us about animal use in general. The only reason we are not equally moved by the brutal murder of other animals is simply because we choose to ignore it. The reason we ignore it is because we benefit from it, and are therefore complicit in it.
We disregard our ethical responsibility toward these animals because it is convenient, but in so doing, we unwittingly stunt our ethical development, and thereby inhibit the social progression of humanity. The evolution of civilization is a continuous path toward learning the difference between right and wrong, between justice and injustice. To cling so stubbornly to the practice of enslaving animals for food and other pleasures, is to deny the need for the evolution of society, as though our widespread problems with violence and brutality do not have some deeper cause that needs to be addressed.
To be deeply saddened by the murder of a family dog is a sane reaction to a horrific occurrence. The hypocrisy begins when we shut off that sadness in reaction to the murder of other animals simply because our culture has taught us that 'cow, pig, chicken, sheep, fish… it's good food for us'.
Read more: dogs, vegan, ethics, speciesism, spca, animal welfare, animal rights, new zealand, paea taufu, man eats dog
comments
To bad people are wild! No they are stinking third world scum who should have been exterminated long before they could start eating dogs or horses. These low life people are on the BOTTOM of the evolution ladder and as long as New Zealand and other places have lax laws against cruelty this will continue. The New Zealand lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves. I am willing to bet no matter how much negative publicity they get they will do nothing. Like these stinking immigrants are important to their country. To bad the dog didn't find a way to kill some of them and improve the planet~!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Lloyd H.
Excellent point! Because of your enlightening (and not at all smug and superior post), I have decided to change my ways. I'm dismounting from my high horse and exercising my "right to call it dinner".
So I'm thinking, we can barbecue up my 2 year old pug for an appetizer, definitely some insects for dessert...and perhaps my 9 month old nephew as the entree. He's a little chunky, so would probably make a delicious meal, and he's pretty helpless too..don't have to worry about him running anyway or anything. And of course, we'll do it all "humanely", so I don't really see a problem.
I mean, I know you made that point about "the definition of sociopath - having no concern for the rights or well being of others.", but that doesn't apply when we're discussing dinner, right? I mean, I can't possible worry about the rights or well-being of my dog, or my nephew....because I'm HUNGRY!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Felicia - Can you tell me why you think a vegan diet is expensive? I have been both meat eater and vegan and I must disagree that vegan food is more expensive - it doesn't have to be, nor is it that hard to find foods that are suitable. It is becoming even easier with major supermarkets carrying and labelling foods that are suitable for vegans.
"Saturated fat (SFA): molecules completely packed or 'saturated' with hydrogen. Fats containing mainly SFA are generally hard at room temperature. These fats are often considered 'bad fats' because they have consistently been linked to an increased risk of heart disease and some forms of cancer. Animal products are the main source of saturated fats in Western diets. Vegans rarely need to concern themselves with avoiding sat fats as plant based diets contain very little.Most higher- fat plant foods contain about 5-20% of fat as saturated fat (compared with 20-30% in fish, 33% in chicken, 50% in meat and 66% in dairy).
Source: Becoming Vegan - The complete guide to adopting a healthy plant-based diet.
Brenda Davis, R.D. & Vesanto Merlina, M.S., R.D.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
It's so horrible that a lot of people are still wild. We really don't need meat for our health but we must belive that it is true. All depends on our way of thinking. People of some wild tribes still eat each other. I am sure that they think that the meat of people is very good for health.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I am with you, Misty... why do seemingly NICE people inflict
such cruelty on animals? I think it's time the animals got their
revenge.. wouldn't that be great!!!l
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I personally wouldn't eat a dog or horse, But what I am more concerned with it the mis-treatment and cruelity that the animals recieve! There is no reason at all for cruelity to animals except for the amusement of Psycho/Sociopaths there is way too many of them and that's why there's so much cruelity to animals and good people! too bad we can't euthanize Psychopath/Sociopaths!!!!! that would solve the majority of problems and chaos on this Earth!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
PH,
I am alreay a member of that campagain. Thanks though for the invite!!!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
La Jana,
Since you obviously care about where your food comes from consider joining the OCA and their Millions Against Monsanto campaign. Here is the link.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
cont
In conventional nutrition, animal products are seen as a key source of protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12, while dairy products are seen as a key source of calcium. However, zinc and iron are found in useful amounts in many whole grains, nuts, seeds and legumes and vegans are no more likely to become anaemic than anyone else. Protein is found in adequate amounts in most plant foods: it is fairly low in fruit, potatoes and rice, but particularly high in legumes. With regard to calcium,100 grams of spring greens, kale, mustard greens or Chinese cabbage provide about the same amount of retained calcium as a cup of cow's milk. If you eat a lot of these vegetables, you can be confident about your bone health. If you totally avoid such vegetables, two cups of fortified soya milk would be adequate. It is probably best to use both, as each has other benefits as well as calcium: the greens provide folate, vitamin K and vitamin C and the fortified soya milk provides protein in a particularly healthful form, usually together with vitamins B12 and D. One large serving of calcium-rich dark green vegetables and a cup of fortified soya milk per day is an excellent foundation. Along with plenty of other vegetables and fruits and unrefined grains, such a diet is providing most nutrients in abundance, including intakes of vitamin C, vitamin K, folate, potassium and magnesium greatly exceeding most omnivorous diets.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Hello PH - still warm here - currently 91 degrees!!!!
It is currently believed that the human body cannot make 8 of these amino acids, they are the "essential" ones.
Near-complete proteins are also found in some plant sources such as quinoa, buckwheat, hempseed, and amaranth, among others. Soya appears as lower in sulfur-containing amino acids, which instead are abundant in many other plant protein sources. It is not necessary to consume plant foods containing complete proteins as long as a reasonably varied diet is maintained. By consuming a wide variety of plant foods, a full set of essential amino acids will be supplied and the human body can convert the amino acids into proteins.
Different vegetable proteins contain different combinations of amino acids, and by eating a variety of fruits and vegetables you can get all the amino acids you need.
For more information, see the wikipedia link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid
Vegans usually obtain vitamin D from the action of sunlight on the skin or by taking fortified foods such as soya milk, margarine and vitamin supplements which are made from yeast or other fungi. (no different from taking a multi vitamin a day which everyone should do) also bright sunlight is not necessary; even the sky shine on a cloudy summer day will stimulate formation of some D in the skin, while a short summer holiday in the open air will increase blood levels of the vitamin by two or three times the amount.
cont
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1229339