Agenda for a New America
Part One
The Politics of Vegetarianism
By Vasu Murti
Chapter 12 - Historical Comparisons

According to Howard Lyman, former Senior lobbyist for the National
Farmers Union, "Family farmers are victims of public policy that gives
preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged
the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the beef cartel the
biggest hog at the trough."

The Bible contains numerous examples of conflict situations that are
directly attributable to the practice of raising livestock, including
contested water rights, bitter competition for grazing areas, and
friction between agriculturalists and nomadic herdsmen. The more
settled agricultural communities deeply resented the intrusion of
nomadic tribes with their large herds of cattle, sheep, and goats.
These animals were considered a menace. Aside from the threat to the
crops themselves, large herds of livestock caused much damage to the
general quality of the land as a result of over grazing.

It was ostensibly for this reason that the Philistines, whose primary
agricultural pursuits were corn and orchards, sought to discourage
nomadic herdsmen from using their territory by filling in many of the
wells in the surrounding area. One of the earliest accounts of strife
among the herdsmen themselves is found in the story of Lot and Abram:

"And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and
tents. And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell
together; for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell
together. And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle
and the herdmen of Lot's cattle." (Genesis 13:5-7)

Abram moved Westward to a region known as Canaan, while Lot journeyed
to the east, finally settling in Sodom. Such peaceful agreements,
however, were not always possible. There are several references in
the Bible to clashes between the Israelites and Midianites. The
Midianites were wealthy Bedouin traders who owned large numbers of
livestock, as did the Israelites, who brought their herds with them
when they left Egypt.

Livestock require vast areas of land for grazing. They also need
water, which has never been abundant in that region of the world. The
strain thus placed on the land's resources is mentioned in Judges 6:4:
"And they encamped against them, and destroyed the increase of the
earth."

The depletion of resources created by the people amid livestock moving
into this territory is described in Judges 6:5 by a singularly
appropriate simile: "For they came up with their cattle and their
tents, and they came as grasshoppers." Another passage informs us
that after a particularly vicious battle with the Midianites the
Israelites augmented their herds with the livestock of their slain
captives. This included 675,000 sheep and more than 72,000 beeves.

A strikingly frank reference to the casual relationship between flesh
eating and war, in terms of land use, is found in Deuteronomy 12:20:
"When the Lord thy God shall enlarge thy border, as he hath promised
thee, and thou shalt say, 'I will eat flesh,' because thy soul longeth
to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth
after." (See also Numbers 31:32-33)

A similar straightforward reference to the relationship between flesh
eating and war can be found in Plato's Republic. In a dialogue with
Glaucon, Socrates extols the peace and happiness what come to people
eating a vegetarian diet: "And with such a diet they may be expected
to live in peace and health to a good old age, and bequeath a similar
life to their children after them."

Glaucon remains skeptical that people would be satisfied with such
fare. He asserts that people will desire the "ordinary conveniences of
life," including animal flesh. Socrates then proceeds to stock the
once ideal state with swineherds, huntsmen, and "cattle in great
number." The dialogue continues:

"...and there will be animals of many other kinds, if people eat
them?"

"Certainly."

"And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physicians
than before? "

"Much greater."

"And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants
will be too small now, and not enough?"

"Quite true."

"Then a slice of our neighbor's land will be wanted by us for pasture
and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves,
they exceed the limit of necessity, and give themselves up to the
unlimited accumulation of wealth?"

"That, Socrates, will be inevitable."

"And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not?"

"Most certainly," Glaucon replies.

Critics of Plato, reading the rest of the Republic, have complained
that what Plato gives us is a militaristic or proto-fascist state,
with censorship and a rigidly controlled economy. Plato would hardly
disagree with these critics; what they have overlooked is that the
state which he describes is not his idea - it is merely a consequence
of Glaucon's requirements which Socrates himself disavows. Greed for
meat, among other things, produced the character of the second state
Plato describes.

The history of the European spice trade would seem to suggest that
there is indeed a relationship between war and large-scale consumer
demand for foods not required by what Plato refers to as "natural
want." Spices were of vital importance to meat preparation before the
process of mechanical refrigeration was developed in the 20th century,
meat was usually preserved by the process of salting. Using various
combinations of spices to offset the saltiness of meat, thus making it
palatable, became a popular practice in medieval Europe.

The demand for spices was a significant factor in European colonial
endeavors. Competition intensified, contributing to the exacerbation
of serious disputes that already existed among various European
nations. Efforts in the 17th and 18th centuries by the Dutch,
Portuguese, English and French to expand their spice trade resulted in
warfare, as well as the subjugation of native peoples by these
imperialist powers.

Shepherds have traditionally been depicted in both art and religious
and secular literature as a peaceable lot. However, there were
inevitable disputes between farmers and shepherds over territorial
rights. This situation was aggravated by the fact that sheep posed an
even greater threat to the land than cattle because they clipped grass
closer to the ground, sometimes tearing it out by the roots. The
Spanish sheepowner's guild known as the Mesta dominated Spain's
political affairs for several centuries (AD 1200-1500) and was the
source of much internal strife within that country.

The Mesta's sheep not only destroyed pastureland by overgrazing but
were also allowed to rampage through cultivated fields. The peasant
farmers could hardly expect the monarchy to rectify this injustice
since sheep raising dominated medieval Spanish commerce and was the
government's principal source of revenue during this period.

There was considerable animosity among shepherds, cattlemen and crop
farmers in 19th-century America. The Homestead Act of 1862 encouraged
more people to settle in the West. The very nature of livestock
raising in the United States at that time required vast areas of land
for grazing and moving the animals along designated trails to their
final destinations. Hence the proliferation of farming communities
became a serious threat to the livestock industry. This situation
became worse when the farmers put up barbed-wire fences, a practice
that began in the 1880s.

Aside from the conflict between livestock herders and farmers, there
were bitter feuds between cattlemen and sheepmen, including such
conflicts as the "Tonto Basin War" in Arizona, the "Holbrook War" in
Montana, the "Blue Mountain War" in Colorado and the "Big Horn Basin
Feud" in Montana.

courtesy of http://www.all-creatures.org/article...-polveg12.html

In article ,
www.factoryfarming.com says...

Agenda for a New America
Part One
The Politics of Vegetarianism
By Vasu Murti
Chapter 12 - Historical Comparisons

According to Howard Lyman, former Senior lobbyist for the National
Farmers Union, "Family farmers are victims of public policy that gives
preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged
the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the beef cartel the
biggest hog at the trough."

Hey, if you don't want to eat meat,
that's fine. More for me. But this
kind of argument smacks of the same
thing the stoners use to legitimize
hemp production, when what they really
want to do is get ****ed up. Fine.
I don't have a problem with that,
either. You don't want to have to
kill and eat something because it
makes you feel uncomfortable. I
don't have that concern, and you
won't persuade me with a tangiential
argument like this. Just like all
those Bible thumpers who try to prove
to me that Jesus was a real person and
not just a fictional construct. I
don't give a shit. I don't like Jesus's
philosophy and I could care less whether
he was "real" or not. Just admit it's
your personal philosophy and don't try
to dress it up with a lot of facts and
figures that supposedly justify it.
You don't have to justify yourself to
me, because there comes a point where
the it all boils down to what we
individually believe or feel. I don't
have a problem with that. Just admit
it so we can all get out of church and
go home and get a hamburger.

"The Office" wrote in message
...
In article ,
www.factoryfarming.com says...

Agenda for a New America
Part One
The Politics of Vegetarianism
By Vasu Murti
Chapter 12 - Historical Comparisons

According to Howard Lyman, former Senior lobbyist for the National
Farmers Union, "Family farmers are victims of public policy that gives
preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged
the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the beef cartel the
biggest hog at the trough."

Hey, if you don't want to eat meat,
that's fine. More for me. But this
kind of argument smacks of the same
thing the stoners use to legitimize
hemp production, when what they really
want to do is get ****ed up. Fine.
I don't have a problem with that,
either. You don't want to have to
kill and eat something because it
makes you feel uncomfortable. I
don't have that concern, and you
won't persuade me with a tangiential
argument like this. Just like all
those Bible thumpers who try to prove
to me that Jesus was a real person and
not just a fictional construct. I
don't give a shit. I don't like Jesus's
philosophy and I could care less whether
he was "real" or not. Just admit it's
your personal philosophy and don't try
to dress it up with a lot of facts and
figures that supposedly justify it.
You don't have to justify yourself to
me, because there comes a point where
the it all boils down to what we
individually believe or feel. I don't
have a problem with that. Just admit
it so we can all get out of church and
go home and get a hamburger.

Absolutely. Besides, humans were designed to be able to eat just about
anything. We are at the top of the food chain. Why fly in the face of
nature's design?

tubeguy wrote:

"The Office" wrote in message
...

In article ,
www.factoryfarming.com says...

Agenda for a New America
Part One
The Politics of Vegetarianism
By Vasu Murti
Chapter 12 - Historical Comparisons

According to Howard Lyman, former Senior lobbyist for the National
Farmers Union, "Family farmers are victims of public policy that gives
preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged
the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the beef cartel the
biggest hog at the trough."

Hey, if you don't want to eat meat,
that's fine. More for me. But this
kind of argument smacks of the same
thing the stoners use to legitimize
hemp production, when what they really
want to do is get ****ed up. Fine.
I don't have a problem with that,
either. You don't want to have to
kill and eat something because it
makes you feel uncomfortable. I
don't have that concern, and you
won't persuade me with a tangiential
argument like this. Just like all
those Bible thumpers who try to prove
to me that Jesus was a real person and
not just a fictional construct. I
don't give a shit. I don't like Jesus's
philosophy and I could care less whether
he was "real" or not. Just admit it's
your personal philosophy and don't try
to dress it up with a lot of facts and
figures that supposedly justify it.
You don't have to justify yourself to
me, because there comes a point where
the it all boils down to what we
individually believe or feel. I don't
have a problem with that. Just admit
it so we can all get out of church and
go home and get a hamburger.


Absolutely. Besides, humans were designed to be able to eat just about
anything. We are at the top of the food chain. Why fly in the face of
nature's design?



Because we can?

Don

In article , Donald Shepherd says...

tubeguy wrote:

Absolutely. Besides, humans were designed to be able to eat just about
anything. We are at the top of the food chain. Why fly in the face of
nature's design?

Because we can?

I see people doing some things on those
porno sites that nature never intended.
So I don't think "because we can" is a
very good argument in favor of something.

If someone wants to be a vegan or only
eat crickets or cheeseburgers, I got no
problem with it. I just don't need to
hear prostletyzing done to make them feel
better. Just keep it to yourself. We
all pick our own poisons in this life,
and a quick look at the obituaries will
prove that doctors die at about the same
rate and at the same age as everbody else.

On 5 Mar 2004 08:27:06 -0800, The Office
wrote:

If someone wants to be a vegan or only
eat crickets or cheeseburgers, I got no
problem with it. I just don't need to
hear prostletyzing done to make them feel
better. Just keep it to yourself.

Should we keep it to ourselves by crossposting it into
alt.food.barbecue, as you've done?

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

In article , Kevin S. Wilson says...

On 5 Mar 2004 08:27:06 -0800, The Office
wrote:

If someone wants to be a vegan or only
eat crickets or cheeseburgers, I got no
problem with it. I just don't need to
hear prostletyzing done to make them feel
better. Just keep it to yourself.

Should we keep it to ourselves by crossposting it into
alt.food.barbecue, as you've done?

If you wish. Otherwise, you can dip
me in sauce and eat me, you fat
*******.

The Office wrote in
:

In article , Kevin S.
Wilson says...

On 5 Mar 2004 08:27:06 -0800, The Office
wrote:

If someone wants to be a vegan or only
eat crickets or cheeseburgers, I got no
problem with it. I just don't need to
hear prostletyzing done to make them feel
better. Just keep it to yourself.

Should we keep it to ourselves by crossposting it into
alt.food.barbecue, as you've done?

If you wish. Otherwise, you can dip
me in sauce and eat me, you fat
*******.



LOL!

"Donald Shepherd" wrote in message
...
tubeguy wrote:

"The Office" wrote in message
...

In article ,
www.factoryfarming.com says...

Agenda for a New America
Part One
The Politics of Vegetarianism
By Vasu Murti
Chapter 12 - Historical Comparisons

According to Howard Lyman, former Senior lobbyist for the National
Farmers Union, "Family farmers are victims of public policy that gives
preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged
the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the beef cartel the
biggest hog at the trough."

Hey, if you don't want to eat meat,
that's fine. More for me. But this
kind of argument smacks of the same
thing the stoners use to legitimize
hemp production, when what they really
want to do is get ****ed up. Fine.
I don't have a problem with that,
either. You don't want to have to
kill and eat something because it
makes you feel uncomfortable. I
don't have that concern, and you
won't persuade me with a tangiential
argument like this. Just like all
those Bible thumpers who try to prove
to me that Jesus was a real person and
not just a fictional construct. I
don't give a shit. I don't like Jesus's
philosophy and I could care less whether
he was "real" or not. Just admit it's
your personal philosophy and don't try
to dress it up with a lot of facts and
figures that supposedly justify it.
You don't have to justify yourself to
me, because there comes a point where
the it all boils down to what we
individually believe or feel. I don't
have a problem with that. Just admit
it so we can all get out of church and
go home and get a hamburger.


Absolutely. Besides, humans were designed to be able to eat just about
anything. We are at the top of the food chain. Why fly in the face of
nature's design?



Because we can?

Not good enough. Using blinking text in web pages is a good example of
something that can be done but shouldn't be.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:46:58 GMT, "tubeguy"
wrote:

Because we can?

Not good enough. Using blinking text in web pages is a good example of
something that can be done but shouldn't be.

Quoting 64 lines of text to add 2 lines is another.

Debating vegetarianism while including alt.food.barbecue in the
newgroups header is another.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:05:55 GMT, Ultra Violet wrote:

LOL!

I'll be you can be entertained for hours with a bit of shiny tinfoil.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:46:58 GMT, "tubeguy"
wrote:

Because we can?

Not good enough. Using blinking text in web pages is a good example of
something that can be done but shouldn't be.

Quoting 64 lines of text to add 2 lines is another.

Debating vegetarianism while including alt.food.barbecue in the
newgroups header is another.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Anything, when cooked in large enough batches, will be vile."
--Dag Right-square-bracket-gren, in alt.religion.kibology

Thank You Kevin,

[snipping a.b.s.f.g. from the headers]

-l

--
to email me, remove the 'burnt_crusty_bits' from the email addy

In article , Kevin S. Wilson says...

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:05:55 GMT, Ultra Violet wrote:

LOL!

I'll be you can be entertained for hours with a bit of shiny tinfoil.

You know all about tin foil,
don't you barbeque boy? I got
something here you can dry rub.

tubeguy wrote:

"Donald Shepherd" wrote in message
...

tubeguy wrote:


"The Office" wrote in message
...


In article ,
www.factoryfarming.com says...


Agenda for a New America
Part One
The Politics of Vegetarianism
By Vasu Murti
Chapter 12 - Historical Comparisons

According to Howard Lyman, former Senior lobbyist for the National
Farmers Union, "Family farmers are victims of public policy that gives
preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged
the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the beef cartel the
biggest hog at the trough."

Hey, if you don't want to eat meat,
that's fine. More for me. But this
kind of argument smacks of the same
thing the stoners use to legitimize
hemp production, when what they really
want to do is get ****ed up. Fine.
I don't have a problem with that,
either. You don't want to have to
kill and eat something because it
makes you feel uncomfortable. I
don't have that concern, and you
won't persuade me with a tangiential
argument like this. Just like all
those Bible thumpers who try to prove
to me that Jesus was a real person and
not just a fictional construct. I
don't give a shit. I don't like Jesus's
philosophy and I could care less whether
he was "real" or not. Just admit it's
your personal philosophy and don't try
to dress it up with a lot of facts and
figures that supposedly justify it.
You don't have to justify yourself to
me, because there comes a point where
the it all boils down to what we
individually believe or feel. I don't
have a problem with that. Just admit
it so we can all get out of church and
go home and get a hamburger.


Absolutely. Besides, humans were designed to be able to eat just about
anything. We are at the top of the food chain. Why fly in the face of
nature's design?



Because we can?


Not good enough. Using blinking text in web pages is a good example of
something that can be done but shouldn't be.



What's the downside? (to flying in the face of nature's design) Isn't
the freedom to do so part of the design of our nature anyway? Or do you
think we are all preprogrammed robots? Some of us are, but all of us?

Don

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:46:58 GMT, "tubeguy"
wrote:

Because we can?

Not good enough. Using blinking text in web pages is a good example of
something that can be done but shouldn't be.

Quoting 64 lines of text to add 2 lines is another.

Debating vegetarianism while including alt.food.barbecue in the
newgroups header is another.

Thank you for adding a substantive argument to the thread. Troll.