John Maxwell Coetzee |
In an
article in the Spanish major newspaper La Vanguardia, the writer Quim Monzó
recalls a campaign organized by the City Council of a Catalonian village to move
people to collect canine excrements, with a poster where a pig-like dog appeared
to tell its master: "I am your dog. Don’t make me look like a pig. Collect
my excrements." The poster provoked numerous complaints from local
animalists, who considered it an insult to pigs. Quim Monzó adds the
following comment:
As expected... we are now hearing the slogan that the
time has come to eliminate all phrases that trivialize the suffering of
animals. [The animalist association] proposes that we stop using expressions
like "kill two birds with one stone" or "be treated as a guinea
pig”... We must not say "take the bull by the horns". There is also
an English expression "bring home the bacon," which should not be
used either.
Monzó has given his article
a significant title: Idiots, idiots everywhere.
I would not dare to call
animalists idiots, but I must accuse them of irrationality. Do they really
believe that some pig was offended by the campaign for the collection of canine
excrement, or that whenever we say don’t be
a pig (or any of its synonyms) to rebuke a dirty person? I am afraid
that pigs are not even aware of our use of language. The only ones who bother about
this are animalists, and until proven otherwise, we must assume that they are
human beings.
Of course, at least
part of the animalists think that human beings are just animals, with no special
rights, apart from those held (for instance) by cockroaches. I have talked
about this in one
of the most visited posts in this blog. In fact, the very existence of
animalists is one of the proofs that man is a unique species. Do you happen to
know of any other species who feels responsible
or proposes to speak with political
correctness about members of a different species?
When we
behave irrationally, we are more irrational than irrational animals.
John Maxwell Coetzee
is a South African born winner of the Nobel Prize of Literature, vegetarian by
conviction, who has embraced in his books the defense of the rights of animals.
His novel The
Lives of Animals is very well written and tries to be impartial.
The main character, Elizabeth Costello, who defends in public what is obviously
the position of the author, is contradicted by those who do not share her ideas,
and sometimes cannot find an answer to their arguments.
When I read the book,
it seemed to me that Costello (and therefore Coetzee) relied more on feelings
than on reason. She appealed too much to all those poor animals that suffer and are
sacrificed to serve as food. While reading the book, I could not
help but wonder if Coetzee (or all those animalists around us who cannot polish
Coetzee’s shoes) will one day come up with the idea of forbidding carnivorous
animals to kill and eat their usual prey. Will lions be forced to become
vegetarian? No, they just want to compel our own species.
Thank goodness, for
it has been done before: well-intentioned people, of little biological
knowledge, advocated during the nineteenth century and part of the twentieth the
extermination of vermin, as they called the carnivores. The result was an ecological
chaos in all the places where this was put in practice. In fact, carnivores are the best friends of
herbivores, as they help them to control the growth of their
population, which in their absence would quickly lead to the depletion of their
vegetable diet and to their own extinction.
Samuel Butler |
Samuel Butler was an
English writer who in 1872 published a novel significantly titled Erewhon.
Observe that this word, read the other way around, becomes Nowhere, which means
the same as Utopia. But as it is written in reverse, the novel speaks about a reversed
utopia, that is, a dystopia (a word that in Butler's time had not
yet been invented). Rather than representing a perfect society, it describes an
imperfect society, so as to criticize the defects of Butler’s own society.
In Erewhon one day a
preacher of animalism defends the rights of animals, and achieves the
promulgation of a law that forbids eating animals that have not died of natural
death. Immediately there is a crowd of citizens who go to the judges with a
dead sheep and say: Your Honor, I’ve come to ask you to declare that this
animal died of natural causes, so that we can eat it. A stone hit it on the
head and it died. Tired of this Kafkaesque situation, a
philosopher comes up with the solution: he preaches the rights of plants,
which are also living beings, and demands a law declaring that only plants that have died a natural death should be consumed. Reacting against this
absurdity, the citizens of Erewhon come to their senses and abolish the law
against the consumption of animals.
I suggest modern
animalists should read Erewhon, to find out how far their proposals could take
them.The same post in Spanish
Thematic Thread on Politics and Economy: Previous Next
Manuel Alfonseca
No comments:
Post a Comment